Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Mar 1966

Vol. 222 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 12: General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
—(Minister for Finance).

Towards the end of my contribution on Wednesday last, I was speaking about certain aspects of the NIEC Report and, in particular, about that aspect of the Report which referred to an incomes policy and to industrial relations generally. I should like to talk for a short while now on industrial relations and also about an incomes policy as recommended by and referred to in the NIEC Report. What I am concerned about is the deliberate attempt by certain people to discredit the trade union movement. The way many people talk one would imagine there was near anarchy in the country as far as industrial relations are concerned.

The trade union movement and the members of my Party, the Labour Party, would be the first to admit that there is a great deal of room for improvement in industrial relations. The trade union movement also concedes that, as far as its own association is concerned, there is need for improvement in the whole trade union structure. However, even with these admissions, I still think it is wrong — it does a great deal of harm as against the harm that may be done by unofficial strikes or by poor industrial relations generally — for people to try to represent the trade union movement as a movement that is near anarchy, as a movement wanting to disrupt the economy and as a movement which wants to stop the wheels of industry turning.

Many people talk very loosely about wildcat and unofficial strikes without seeking out the facts. The Minister for Finance and, in particular, the Minister for Industry and Commerce are in a position to demonstrate to those who are concerned and to the critics of the trade union movement that we have not had a great number of wildcat and unofficial strikes in the past 12 months, and it is the past 12 months to which reference is usually made. Such strikes it will be found, I think, have been very few indeed, and only in some areas in the country.

Whilst there is, as I say, a great deal of room for improvement in industrial relations and in the trade union structure, it is recognised by the various trade unions and by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that there is much more room for a change in the social and economic system since there must be some fundamental reason for the unrest. There must be a reason for the dissatisfaction that undoubtedly exists in certain sections of the community, particularly in those sections which are now being criticised for trying to improve their personal and their general position.

Mark you, the Minister for Transport and Power in a good portion of his speech here last Wednesday quoted certain of the recommendations of the NIEC Report on the economy of the country. That Report was published last November. The Minister took out sections and misconstrued many of them in an effort to give the impression that the NIEC Report was directed in the main to workers, advising them to show restraint in relation to their anticipated incomes in the coming year.

I said, and I believe, that there is much more need for a change in the social and economic system of the country. That is borne out to an extent — not in respect of the whole economy — in paragraph 68 of the Report. In an objective way, the Council make some attempt to analyse the reasons for dissatisfaction in many respects. They talk about the dissatisfaction with the present personal distribution of incomes. It is a pretty valid point. They advocate that consideration should be given to the change I have suggested. They also talk about the grievances of wage and salary earners with regard to social and economic distinctions or inequalities in opportunities for advancement. They talk about the difference between economic and social security as between wage and salary earners.

They also mention as a source of dissatisfaction the incremental scales applying to certain sections. We have heard much criticism about what we might term the unreasonableness of certain clerical workers who have sought service pay. They believe that in industrial employment and other work outside Government and local government employment where service pay is given automatically, the same situation should apply. There has been talk and criticism in regard to fringe benefits, pensions and compensation for loss of employment. All these things have been won and are being enjoyed by a certain section of the community and surely it is legitimate for those who have not got these advantages to seek them. That is all they have been trying to do during the past 18 months or two years.

In their report, the NIEC recommend that these grievances should be removed. When the Minister for Transport and Power purported to quote the NIEC Report, he seemed to skip over the paragraphs in which the members of the NIEC pinpointed some of the grievances and the causes of dissatisfaction among certain sections of wage and salary earners. It is thought unreasonable if trade unions seek to improve the position of their members, but these sections of the community are specifically mentioned in the November Report of the NIEC. I should again like to emphasise this point apropos the speech of the Minister for Transport and Power and the statements of other members of the Fianna Fáil Party during this debate.

Lengthy statements were made in October, November and December last about an incomes policy and let me say it would be fair criticism to allege that as far as the Government are concerned, a wages and incomes policy should apply only to wage and salary earners, forgetting that the Report, to which I have referred a few times in my speech so far, specifically states that an incomes policy cannot and should not be implemented in respect of wages and salaries only. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Transport and Power apparently want the country to believe that a three per cent increase in incomes — wages or salaries — is the only portion of an incomes policy that ought to be applied now. There is no free advice from the Taoiseach or others in the Government for those whose incomes are derived from profits, from professional earnings or realised capital gains. I have not heard the Minister for Transport and Power or any Member of the Government say that an increase in incomes this year in all sectors should be confined to three per cent. I have not heard any warnings from the Minister for Transport and Power as to how the economy would be affected if there were more than three per cent earned as profits, professional earnings or capital gains in 1966 and 1967.

I shall quote from the NIEC Report on the Economic Situation, page 42, paragraph 56:

The position as regards other types of income is different from that of wages and salaries in that the method by which the principle is to be applied is less obvious, and requires to be developed in further detail here.

I think that is pretty valid. It is easy to apply it to wage and salary earners and relatively difficult to apply it to other sectors. The paragraph continues:

It must be emphasised, however, that the difficulties in applying the principle to these other money incomes must not only be faced but also overcome. Incomes policy must be accepted as a whole and its application to all sectors must have equal priority and effectiveness. The measures relating to other incomes should be set out in advance by the government and applied to them contemporaneously with the application of incomes policy to wages and salaries.

Therefore, the Government have a duty, if they wish to impose an incomes policy, to apply it to all sections of the community as well as to the wage and salary earners.

Speaking here last Wednesday, the Minister for Transport and Power, reported at columns 2172 and 2173 of the Official Report, stated:

I have made it perfectly clear — indeed, we all have — that we believe in a strong, constructively organised trade union movement. But we would like to see a general acceptance of the principles in the report of the National Industrial Economic Council on incomes, which principles are now universally accepted as authentic. We have gone further than that. Many of us have suggested that there should be more communication between employers and workers and employers should take workers more into their confidence in regard to their distributed profits, their levels of profits, so that workers will understand to what extent they are sharing in the prosperity of firms and to what extent shareholders are likewise sharing. We hear little about that from the Opposition. If there could be more propaganda for better communication between employers and workers and members of the Dáil could give practical suggestions as to how to bring that about and encourage it, we would be getting a greater understanding of the implications of the incomes policy.

I do not think that is valid comment on the Opposition as represented here by the Labour Party who, for many years, have been advocating not what the Minister advocated last Wednesday but what the NIEC advocated three or four months ago. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, who has been in the House for approximately the same period as I have, will agree that the Labour Party have been advocating this for years and years. We have talked about disclosures of information to workers that would induce them to give even more by way of production. We have always said it was a pity that steps were not taken to correct the situation whereby workers and employers seemed to meet only when in dispute.

At column 2174, the Minister continued:

We none of us are against workers' wages rising but, at the same time, it is just as well to be frank about what will happen. If incomes go markedly above what has been recommended by the National Industrial Economic Council, the workers will not gain any advantage. The rise will not help them. It will merely mean an increase in the cost of living that would not otherwise be necessary and the nine trade unionists and the employers on the Council have solemnly informed the people that, if there is an increase of ten per cent in incomes all round, the cost of living will go up by six per cent. That is what they have said. We warned the people of that. We have suggested that, if incomes go up excessively, the workers will not get any advantage out of that situation. That is one of the things that has not been accepted as yet.

I do not know whether the Minister was being deliberately mischievous. Either he was or he did not read the NIEC Report properly.

It is pretty well accepted that the inference by the Minister for Transport and Power is that wage and salary earners want ten per cent and if they get it, the cost of living will go up by six per cent. I want to emphasise that the NIEC — represented by the trade unions, the employers and the Civil Service — said that would happen only if all incomes go up by ten per cent. But the inference by the Minister for Transport and Power is that the nine trade unionist members of the NIEC have advocated that there should not be an increase of any more than three per cent so far as wages and salaries are concerned. The members of the NIEC, through the trade union movement, have made their position very clear in the resolution they put to the trade unionists of this country at a conference held in Dublin on 19th or 20th January last in which they advocated that a maximum salary and wage increase of £1 should be sought. Therefore, I think it is wrong for the Minister for Transport and Power, either by inference or by innuendo, to forecast what may happen to the economy if workers get more than three per cent. If he had been a little more specific and talked about incomes all round and then went on to speak about what he considered to be the dangers to the economy, that would have been valid enough, but to try to pretend that the leaders of the trade union movement on the NIEC speak in another voice is dishonest, if that is the view the Minister intended to be taken from the remarks he made on Wednesday last.

The Taoiseach in his speech said he felt frustrated when I gave the example of a three per cent increase in wages to a man with £10 per week as being represented by 6/- per week and to a man with £7 10. 0. per week as being represented by 4/9 per week. He went on to talk, not for very long I might say, to the effect that, if increases were to be given, the bigger increases should be given, to the lowerclass workers. There is an opinion in the trade union movement that that might be the general pattern but, if the Taoiseach believes that, he should contact his Minister for Agriculture immediately and make a proposal to him as to what the agricultural workers should get. I do not know whether Deputy James Tully has made any recent plea for the workers in the rural areas but I am sure he is not as optimistic about the result and that the benevolent Agricultural Wages Board, or a certain section of it, or the Minister for Agriculture will automatically give a pound to those who are now in receipt of £7.10.0., £7.15.0., or £8, a week. However, we will see, but I am assuming that, if the previous practice is engaged in, the agricultural worker will be offered a very small increase indeed and nothing in relation to what the trade unions advise should be sought.

In paragraphs 62 and 63 of this NIEC Report, there is a reference to tax evasion apropros the grievances of those in receipt of fixed wages or salaries, or in receipt of a fixed income. They make certain comments and certain recommendations as a followup to another recommendation made by a Government-established body in respect of collection of income tax and tax evasion. They say, in paragraph 62 of the November Report on the Economic Situation, 1965:

The position in regard to professional earnings contrasts sharply with that of wages and salaries, where the possibility of tax evasion is generally negligible. We, therefore, draw attention to the recommendations in the Seventh Report of the Commission on Income Taxation, that there should be a statutory obligation on all who carry on a trade or profession to keep a correct record of business and professional transactions and that these records should be available for inspection by the Revenue Commissioners.

There may not be concrete evidence of the justifiable grievances, particularly of those who contribute income tax under the PAYE system because, as we stressed before from these benches, under PAYE, there is no possibility of evasion in relation to those on fixed salaries and wages. But it was recognised by the Commission on Income Taxation that there was evasion and it does not seem to me that the Government made any strenuous efforts to minimise that evasion. Let me concede that two or three years ago the Minister for Finance, Deputy Dr. Ryan as he was then, did introduce some measure to minimise tax evasion and that was given the wholehearted support of the Labour Party. It seems to me we still have this evasion, on what scale I do not know, but it is no excuse for a Government, a Minister for Finance or the Revenue Commissioners to say that it would be too difficult or too expensive to track this down.

There is one other ominous factor so far as income tax is concerned. Whether or not it is peculiar to this country I do not know. There seems to be a feeling among certain sections that, morally and legally, income tax evasion is all right. The Minister for Finance, and others as well, should take stronger steps and should make much more positive statements to the effect that if the Government pass a Budget Resolution or a section of the Finance Act to the effect that a tax will be paid on net income received or that this should be subject to a tax, that it is collectable legally, those who evade it in any way should be punished. There is a moral aspect of it which we cannot debate entirely in this House. I believe, in any case, that it is immoral to evade payment of income tax by devious methods even though the methods employed may be regarded as legal. I think it is morally wrong. We cannot legislate for morals here but the man on £6 per week has to pay his tax and it is collected from him by the Government through the employer. I believe that those who do not pay under the PAYE system should, as a moral obligation, apart from a legal obligation, be required to pay as well.

The Taoiseach talked about income tax and said, in criticism of the Labour Party, that income tax was 7/6 in the £ ten years ago. He asked the irrational question whether anyone bemoaned the rate then, meaning, I suppose, the Labour Party and the Members of the Opposition who were then in Government. The Taoiseach should, and must, realise that ten years ago a big number did not pay income tax. But now the number being brought into the income tax net under PAYE is very considerable indeed and is increasing. There seems to be no escape for persons in that category, particularly when one remembers that the single worker earning over £6 a week has got to contribute under PAYE. The single agricultural worker or the single road worker, when one has regard to his wages ten years ago, was not brought into the income tax net.

That was the gist of our criticism of the income tax code when we put down our motion some years ago. The rate of income tax may have changed up and down in the past ten years but the income tax allowances have not changed substantially. That is the reason we voted against the proposal by the Minister for Finance in this particular Budget. I am sure we would have been much more sympathetic had there been better allowances in respect of married people and the other categories under the code. It seems, in any case, as far as this Budget is concerned and in respect of the various Fianna Fáil Budgets over the past number of years, that when they want money they are content to extract it in the easiest way, irrespective of the hardship that may be imposed. The turnover tax was the simplest method and so they just put a blanket 2½ per cent on everything. Similarly with the PAYE system.

I want now to refer to something which I mentioned the last night I spoke here. It would appear that no consideration was given to a capital gains or capital receipts tax. Every time we raised that matter here we were told (1) it would get in no money for us this year or (2) the Government had no idea how much they would get from it. If they are getting a few tens of thousands of pounds in tax on mineral waters, surely it would be worth an effort to ensure that those people with capital gains or capital receipts would not be let off with the entire profits but would be liable to pay tax on them.

When somebody outside this House mentioned this matter, the Taoiseach thought it a brilliant idea. It is typical of the Fianna Fáil Party that when a suggestion comes from this side of the House they think it has no merit at all. We mentioned this matter about this time last year in our election manifesto and at elections before that again and we have advocated it in every Budget debate here. The Taoiseach did not think it was a good idea this year. If the Minister for Finance believes his Government will be here next year, he should bear this in mind as a source of revenue. Therefore, I strongly advocate that the Minister should give the matter serious consideration for inclusion at least in the Finance Bill. When they want a considerable amount of money, the Government are dependent on the old reliables — beer, spirits, tobacco, cigarettes, petrol, and so on. The Minister said that that would have the effect of increasing the cost of living by about 1¾ per cent but, with other factors which must be included, the cost of living will go up by about 3½ or four per cent.

The Taoiseach always talks as if he were Simon Pure or Holy Joe. In his eyes, the Opposition have no worthwhile criticism to offer. He talks about the poor and dreary contributions from the Opposition on the Budget, with no suggestions: he calls it a negative approach by the Opposition. He talks about the dynamic forces within the Fianna Fáil Party and he criticises us for not making suggestions and for what he calls our "negative approach". If these were my own words, and not a quote, I know I should be criticised, abused and laughed at by members of the Fianna Fáil Party. In any case, I shall read it, for what it is worth:

We are opposed to all the Resolutions which involve increased taxes on the ground that the Government should have avoided the need for increased taxes if they had made a serious effort to reduce administrative costs.

Those are the words of the present Taoiseach who was then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as reported at column 75, volume 157, of the Official Report of 8th May, 1956. Is he proud now of that kind of criticism of the proposals of the then Minister for Finance on 8th or 9th May, 1956? This, surely, is a negative approach: this, surely, is opposition for the sake of opposition. The Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach must admit that the contributions from this side of the House on this Budget have not been purely in that sort of tone. The attitude, at that particular time, by the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Seán Lemass, was, in effect: "It does not make any difference what proposals the Government bring in, we shall oppose them because we are the Opposition." The members of the Fianna Fáil Party ought to remember that.

The only defence the Government seem to have not alone on this Budget but on previous Budgets is: "What would you do?", as if they expected any individual in this Party, or this Party as an entity, to frame an alternative Budget to the one framed for us now by the Minister for Finance, Deputy J. Lynch. The job of an Opposition is to criticise — not to oppose — as best it can and to make broad suggestions. We cannot be expected to know what the revenue would be from a 2d tax on, say, drinking glasses. Our function here is to criticise, to keep the Government on their toes, and to suggest, where we can, proposals — not detailed — for the raising of money, to point out where savings can be made and to draw attention to obvious methods of raising taxation without hurting people who cannot afford to bear these burdens.

The Government now say, in relation to this Budget, that there is no positive approach by the Opposition. They cannot expect us, or any Opposition in any Parliament in the world, to frame detailed alternative suggestions to a Budget prepared by a Minister for Finance with the assistance, in theory, of 30,000 civil servants. The Labour Party have had a positive approach not alone to the matter under discussion but to many aspects of our economic and social life. I made pretty clear — again, I admit, not in great detail — what the view of the Labour Party was in regard to the establishment of industry. These are not proposals which we have thought up this year. This is what we believe in. We believe that, while private enterprise can do a good and a big job in this country, it is not capable of doing the total job. For that reason, we say we expect the State to intervene.

Again in this Budget, we have suggested the method in which the money available for agriculture should be distributed. We have given positive proposals there, as we have in regard to the establishment of industry. The Minister for Health — not in this particular debate — has given credit to the Labour Party for their proposals in respect of health. We went even a little farther in regard to health. Not alone did we indicate what health policy we wanted but we tried to cost it as best we could. We were not afraid to say that it should be financed, in part, by an extra contribution through insurance stamps by the workers and salary earners, where applicable.

In one of his soft moments, some few years ago, the Taoiseach congratulated the Labour Party on the policy document on education which was produced, with all due respect to them, before that of either the Fine Gael Party or the present or the past Minister for Education. That document was comprehensive in the views and suggestions it contained. I think we have been positive in our approach as far as taxation is concerned. We supported the Government in the measures they introduced in relation to tax evasion. Our views on direct versus indirect taxation are pretty well known. We have complained many times about the increased incidence of indirect taxation. We are a Party who believe that the burden of taxation should not be placed on the backs of people who are not able to bear it. We do not stand for the sly and the mean manner of collecting tax on bread, cigarettes, tobacco and drink. We believe that where wealth is recognised, and where it can be proved, the people with that wealth should be asked to contribute in a greater proportion than people who are finding it very difficult to make ends meet. I do not think there is anything unusual or unreal in that attitude. We should get away from this mean and sly method of imposing indirect taxation to which we have been prone in the past five, six or seven Budgets.

The attitude of the Labour Party in respect of social welfare has also been positive. As demonstrated last year, we were prepared to support every single measure the Government brought forward in order to finance increases in social welfare. We have always told the various Fianna Fáil Ministers for Social Welfare that we will support the measures they bring forward, provided they are fair measures, to increase the insurance stamp contribution in order to give those in receipt of social welfare benefits some increases.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce must concede that we were positive in our approach to price control. Within themselves, the Government would be forced to admit — no matter what they may think about the general question of price control — that, if they had taken our advice on price control about 12 months earlier, we might not now be in the economic mess in which we undoubtedly are. I know that the Fianna Fáil Party do not like price control but, ever since last July, they have been boasting that it has been effective. They have been boasting that the cost of living index figure has been stable since last May. Without giving absolute credit to the Price Control Act, 1965, the inference is there — and there have been positive statements from some members on the back benches — that the implementing of this Act has been responsible for the relative or actual stability in prices since last May.

It does not make any difference what the Fianna Fáil Party think about the policy of the Labour Party. So far as the Trade Agreement was concerned, at least we were honest and direct in our approach. We appeared to be in the minority, and appear to be in the minority. We gave our reasons for thinking that the Trade Agreement should not be signed. We described what we thought would happen, and what we still think will happen, in respect of certain industries. We were not codded into thinking—nor are we still — as the Minister for Agriculture believes, that the agricultural industry will reap enormous benefits from the Trade Agreement. For that reason we had a positive approach — or a negative approach in this case because we decided to oppose it — but we gave our reasons for that decision.

We oppose this Budget not only for the increased taxes it imposes, but for the gloomy outlook it indicates. That is absolutely rampant throughout the speech of the Minister for Finance, and I assume that was the major speech for the Fianna Fáil Government. Above all, we oppose the Budget for the arrogant way in which the Government have presented it and attempted to defend it. The Fianna Fáil Party were happy over the past few years and they were boastful and arrogant. They were content to drift with the tide of favourable European and world conditions and now, when the tide has turned, they find themselves somewhat lost, and they pathetically ask the country and the Opposition: "What went wrong?"

If this were purely a Fianna Fáil Budget to be endured purely by a Fianna Fáil population, it would not be too bad, but unfortunately it is a Budget for the whole nation. Neither is Government policy for the Fianna Fáil Party alone, and I do not think anyone can say it has been an outstanding success. The Labour Party will continue to be critical, and we will continue to advocate our own policy, no matter how unreceptive or belittling the Taoiseach may try to be. In recent years he has poured scorn and abuse on the members of the Labour Party but he should remember that this Party have gained increasing support from the Irish people during the past two general elections and that is more than he can say for the Fianna Fáil Party.

The day after this Budget was made public, a friend of mine commented on the very harsh proposals in it and wound up his observations by saying: "And the worst of it is that there is no sign of a break in the clouds." That appears to me to be a most apt comment on the proposals contained in the Budget now before us. There is no sign of a break in the clouds. I think it can fairly be said that the Budget came not merely as a surprise but as a great shock to the people as a whole when it was made public some few weeks ago. There was no indication whatever of the appalling conditions from the financial and economic points of view that were disclosed by the Minister in his Budget speech. There had been some gloomy references in the newspapers for a short time before that, and there were references in speeches by Ministers forecasting a harsh Budget, but, having regard to the optimism of the previous two or three years, no one other than the Minister and his advisers knew that there was a deficit in last year's public finances of the order of £8 million and that the country was faced with the necessity of meeting a further deficit in the next financial year amounting to £12 million. That was a complete jolt to the public.

Towards the end of his speech, the Minister said:

... we are moving back to a strong economic position and this Budget is designed to help that progress.

There is not one single thing in this Budget which gives any evidence in support of that statement. That statement is quite untenable. There is nothing in this Budget to bring the country back to whatever prosperity it had in the past few years. It is quite apparent that there has been a recession in trade and industry in the past 12 months. There is no doubt that we have had very severe financial restrictions which prevented a return of this prosperity. We have had banking controls and credit restrictions. This Budget in no way brings about a situation that is designed towards moving back to a strong economic position and helping progress. That is quite untenable.

I should like, in a very brief fashion, I hope, to go over the statements made in the Budgets of 1964 and 1965 to show the position they are facing at the present time and to demonstrate the fact that the Government failed in their public duty to control the finances of the country. On the Budget of 1964 which was brought in by Dr. Ryan, as reported at Volume 208, column 1560 of the Official Report, he wound up his speech by saying:

Government policy has been effective both in promoting a high rate of growth of the economy and in ensuring that all share in the increasing national prosperity.

That means that in his view on 14th April, 1964, there was in progress in this country a high rate of growth of the economy and increasing national prosperity. I should add to that that the Taoiseach who, while beating his breast and saying that he is the most honest of men, never fails to produce some utterly hyperbolic statement, described that Budget as a confident and level-headed Budget. Therefore in 1964 we had a confident and level-headed Budget, a high rate of growth of the economy and increasing national prosperity.

We come then to 1965 when the present Minister for Finance introduced his first Budget. Giving expression to the so-called growth of the economy, as reported at column 988, Volume 215 of the Official Report, the Minister said:

... everyone in the community should benefit from the steady upward trend in national prosperity.

According to the present Minister, we have gone further than the prosperity about which we were told by Dr. Ryan. He said:

... we must ensure the continued expansion of exports in order to sustain the improvement of the economy characteristic of recent years.

"Improvement of the economy and a steady upward trend towards national prosperity." That is still on 11th May, 1965, just shortly after the result of the general election had been secured when we had the extraordinary position here in this House of the Government Party and their spokesmen going around advocating and trumpeting to the country how strong the economy was, what great prosperity had been brought about by a Fianna Fáil Government, and how, if they were only returned to office, that prosperity would continue. I suppose, to use the famous phrase of the Fianna Fáil Party in 1932: "Why should it ever stop?" We were told "Let Lemass Lead On". That is the experience this country had, shortly after the Fianna Fáil Government had sponsored and passed through this House a Bill taking away all control of political expenditure during a general election. We had the extraordinary case of the expenditure of the Fianna Fáil Party in all sorts of methods of propaganda and everything else in order to ensure their return in that general election.

They had promised, without equivocation, there was going to be the greatest prosperity. When the present Minister for Finance introduced his first Budget, the country was then informed they were still benefiting from this improvement of the economy, which was characteristic of recent years of the upward trend of prosperity. Then they produced a Budget which the Minister tried to call a social security Budget. They raised more money by increasing taxation than had ever been raised in this country before. That was 1965.

We now come to 1966 and to the position in which the Minister for Finance, inside the first dozen phrases of his Budget speech, the second opening paragraph, is forced to ask himself this question and to put it to the Dáil and the country: "What went wrong with the Budget introduced last May?" So far as we and the country were concerned, we knew there were difficult circumstances but nobody, I am prepared to assert, had any information that anything had really gone wrong with the Budget in the previous 12 months until this position was disclosed, startling the public, during this Budget speech. The Minister asked himself this question, and like Pontius Pilate, did not wait for an answer, nor did he give an answer himself

I want to spend some little time in exposing the fact to the public and to the Dáil here that the Minister came into this House, some weeks ago, with his Budget Statement, and the first question he asked himself was: "What went wrong with my Budget of last year?" He never answered it. In the following 12 lines, he purported to deal with that very crucial question but he dealt with it inadequately, ineffectively and to the point that he left the House and the country entirely without any explanation as to why he, the Government, and particularly the Department of Finance, permitted the state of affairs to go on through that 12 months which resulted in a deficit of £8 million.

No explanation has been given of that. I want to go back to a statement made by the Minister, in his first Budget in the previous year, when he spoke about what he conceived to be the role of his new Department. He spoke about the Department of Finance at column 987, volume 215, No. 8 of the Official Report. He said that the Department of Finance, of which he has now become the head:

has been traditionally regarded both as the holder and as the watchdog of the public purse.

I want the Minister to say here, before this debate is over, how did his Department, during that crucial 12 months period, fulfil that role which he says was their traditional role, the holder and the watchdog of the public purse. He then went on to say:

It will continue in this necessary role. It is essential that a central agency of Government should see both that no unnecessary expenditure of public moneys is incurred and that whatever is spent is spent to good purpose. The Department has also been regarded within and outside the public service as a negative and even reactionary part of the State machine.

I am tempted to pause here, at this stage, and refer the Minister back to the extraordinary statement made by the present Taoiseach, then Deputy Lemass, who was on this side of the House, in 1948, when we were discussing the Vote on Account at that time, which came before the Dáil after the formation of the first inter-Party Government and when he certainly said a few unkind things about the Department of Finance. He said then that all you had to do was to send in any worthwhile proposal to the Department of Finance and it was lost forever. The present Minister proposed to change that when he said:

The Department has also been regarded within and outside the public service as a negative and even reactionary part of the State machine. Whatever truth there may have been in this in the past, it is certainly not true today, nor has it been true for many years. It is my intention that the modern, progressive role of the Department will become more pronounced. The work of economic programming, both for the year ahead, as exemplified in this Budget, and for a period of years, as exemplified in the Second Programme, will continue to be co-ordinated and developed by the expert staff of the Department. New techniques of economic, financial and personnel management will be studied and brought into operation. I want to banish forever the idea that the Department of Finance is the enemy of other Departments of State. I will encourage my Department to take initiatives in spheres that it might hitherto not have entered, to adopt an even more active promotional role, to associate with other Departments in the promotion and examination of new ideas for our further social and economic development, to be a Department of whose existence a wider public will be conscious throughout the whole year and not only at budget time.

Is the wider public conscious of what was being done by the Minister's Department and those experts, about whom he made such a wonderful speech, what they were doing and going to do? What were they doing during the last year to allow this £8 million deficit to occur? The Minister has not told us a single thing about that.

The Minister gave his view of what the role of his Department would be. If they were watchdogs, as they are supposed to be, of the public purse, should they not have been watching the day by day receipts of taxation, the results of the taxation which had been estimated and the receipts which were expected in accordance with that estimate, to find out what was going wrong? Will the Minister tell the country now, after two weeks of debate in this House — it has not been done by any Minister or anybody else so far — what were the Department of Finance, their experts and officials doing all the time during the 12 months to allow that situation to arise in which the public did not know that the whole finances of the State were rocking to such an extent that our financial structure was jeopardised? We were not told that. At least we are entitled to know now and I do not think this House should allow the Minister to wind up this debate without giving the fullest possible information in detail in answer to that question: "What went wrong with the Budget introduced last May?"

As I have said already he purported to answer that question in 12 lines of the Official Report. May I read it for the benefit of anybody who is interested? He says in column 1286:

The most obvious thing is that instead of a balanced Budget being achieved, a deficit of as much as £8 million is now in sight....

It is no use for a Minister to say the Budget is unbalanced, that he does not know why it is unbalanced, and then pass on. That is what he did. He proceeded to say that you could account for this deficit in various ways:

revenue under certain heads failing to come up to expectations....

Again, I ask why did his experts in the Department of Finance not see that sooner than they did, if they ever saw it until just before this Budget, and take the necessary steps, even though these might be drastic, to meet that situation before it went too far, to the position it has now reached? We do not know what they did or whether they knew it at all. The country is entitled to ask and get an answer to that question. So far they have not got it.

The Minister went on:

expenditure on certain services being greater than was provided for....

In other words, they did not estimate a figure high enough. Who was responsible for that? The Departments make their estimates very carefully and these are or ought to be, very carefully scrutinised in the Department of Finance. Everybody who is interested in the matter will know that it is the natural thing that every Department, knowing the scrutiny that will be imposed on its estimate by the Department of Finance, always puts forward an estimate for much more money than they expect to spend. There is no doubt about that. Did they not estimate for their full requirements or to what extent did they fall short? The country is entitled to know what Department or Departments this referred to and how much, in each case, did they fall short of the Estimate and why.

The Minister goes on to say this:

The allowance for "errors of estimation" not being realised.

In his Budget Speech in 1965 the Minister referred to the allowance he was going to make for errors of estimation and, mark you, he had a very big sum of money coming into him at that time when expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1966 on Supply Services other than Capital Services was estimated to be £186,859,852. I do not think there is anybody with any experience of estimation by public Departments in the discharge of their annual duties but would have thought that out of a huge sum of that kind, it was almost certain that there would be over-estimation or that the Departments would not be able to expend what they proposed to spend during the year, to the order of £4 million. But this is what the Minister said at column 974 of 11th May, 1965:

... we would be justified, bearing in mind the growth and development of revenue and expenditure, in adopting a figure of £4 million as the deduction to be made this year for errors of estimation.

He said that they were quite justified, I suppose, in view of the buoyancy of the revenue and the amount of expenditure, in taking into account that £4 million. Now he says that was not realised. To what extent was it not realised? He did not answer that; he said you could give an account of the £8 million deficit by the allowance for errors of estimation not being realised. He is bound to tell the Dáil and the country, and he should not be allowed to complete this debate until he does so, how much of that £4 million that he estimated for on such a confident basis of national prosperity was not realised. He does not tell us the amount. We are entitled to ask and get that figure but we have not got it yet.

In his Budget speech, he said:

But one cannot justify it on financial or economic grounds and that is why early correction is necessary.

That is the only account, the only justification the Minister has given the country of the position, the only justification of this extraordinary position of facing up to the fact that whereas we had been informed before the general election how prosperous we were, that the previous year was a period of higher national prosperity and greater growth in development and that there had been careful estimation of the necessary amount of money required to increase benefits to social welfare classes, we found an unbalanced Budget.

"What went wrong?" the Minister asked himself. We ask him now to give the country some notion of what did go wrong. Up to date we have not got that. The Minister just cannot come into this House — he should not be allowed to do it — and merely say in 12 lines of his Budget speech that we are faced with a situation that nobody expected, that has jolted the country in a way never done before since the establishment of the State and all he can say in three lines is that it might be caused by revenue not coming up to expectations or greater expenditure being made than was considered necessary or because the £4 million over-estimation was not realised. These three things he said "might have been" responsible. We do not know in fact the cause and to what extent was each heading or reason for this extraordinary situation responsible.

Again, having regard to what the Minister said about his officials, that they would be watching day by day and that the country would be more aware of the existence of this group of trained officials than ever they had been before, not only at Budget time or even during the financial period but all the year round, I want to know from the Minister why did they not find this out during the year and stop it? The only way the country can be satisfied is by having the greatest possible detail given in the House of what went wrong with the Budget under each heading, whatever it is, so that the country may see who was responsible and why it was that in the course of the slithering down of the economy, steps were not taken to stop it or to put a brake on the deterioration that was apparently coming in the finances of the country.

It is not good enough for the Minister to come to the Dáil and say casually after the first 12 lines of his opening speech: "What went wrong with the Budget of last May? There is an £8 million deficit," as if he were not responsible, as if having an unbalanced Budget to that extraordinary extent were like contracting measles. The Government cannot shrug off their responsibilities for bringing about that situation which they must have known about during the course of the year. They must accept all the blame. I have already mentioned the groundless optimism with which they faced the country at the general election a short time ago. They got the benefit of that, unfortunately for the country. They now must accept the blame for the mess they have brought the country into. That is the first and, I think, the most important consideration that must be faced by the Dáil and the Minister.

I do also submit that there are three main matters which are essential if this country is to get back again to any sort of prosperity. There is nothing, as I have said, in this Budget except taxation. The only thing that can bring about, according to the Minister, any sort of stability in the country is to raise £12 million of the oppressive taxations proposed in this Budget. There is no other proposal in the Budget to meet the situation. There is no stimulant provided in this Budget. There is no incentive provided. There are no incentives for export, no proper incentives for saving and there is, perhaps worse of all, the impression that has been created since this Budget, of lack of confidence in the future, made all the worse by reason of the fact that the Minister, perhaps to bluff the Labour Party or the trade unions — I do not know — has intimated that there may be an autumn Budget. I will deal with the question of no confidence later in the course of the remarks I have to make.

There are, as I have said, three things necessary. One is an increase in our export trade, the second is an increase in our savings and the third is the creation and maintenance of confidence in the country. There is no use in making the facile observation that the country's economy and finance are basically sound. That is merely a trite observation. It reminds me of the position where a person is sick, as this country is sick at the present time, and the physician who is brought in to try to do something about the disease from which the person is suffering tries to bring himself confidence in what he is going to do to try to cure the person or to calm the relatives by saying that the patient has a good strong constitution and that it is hoped he will get out of his sickness.

It used to be almost the universal method of curing diseases of all kinds in the last century to bleed people. A person ought to have a very strong constitution to stand that. That is what the Minister is doing at the present time and the only thing he is doing. He is performing the operation that was performed incompetently by doctors during the 19th century of bleeding people, whatever they were suffering from, even though they had great constitutions and were physically sound. That is what the Minister is doing. He is bleeding the country and its people and therefore eroding the strong constitution we are supposed to have financially and economically.

From the point of view of any incentives, there is nothing at all. From the point of view of seeing how the disease from which this country certainly is suffering in its finances and economically can be remedied, there is nothing at all. It is not sufficient to say that the country is financially basically sound. We are suffering from some disease and we do not know what cure is being given by the Minister. There is none in this Budget.

The Minister said, at column 1312 of his Financial Statement, that realism was the keynote of this Budget and then he spoke of his honesty—realism and honesty. Honesty is the best policy, he said, for everybody. Deliberately, he has given the plain facts, convinced that honesty is not only the best policy but also the policy that calls forth the best from our people.

Realism and honesty are all very fine when you are found out in any event and it is no use to say you are dealing with the country honestly by giving the facts in a realistic and honest way, when you are caught out in flagrante delicto. There is no honesty in saying that there is an £8 million deficit here now and leaving it at that. Nor is it realistic to pass off in 12 lines the fact that you have got the country in such a mess that, whereas over the period of the previous 12 months everything was ready for at least a balanced Budget or a slight surplus, the country is presented with an £8 million deficit and not explain why that is brought about. It is not honesty and it is not realism.

It is not honesty for the Taoiseach, as he did, when broadcasting on this Budget, to erect a false structure here in order to make the people think what a good person he was, what an honest person he was. He was asked by the journalist interviewing him and I put "journalist" in inverted commas —in fact he is a practising barrister— was there any hope of taxation ever coming down. He said there was not, no hope at all. The Minister says in his speech that this Budget is going to cure the disease from which the country is suffering financially and economically. We have no hope of decreased taxation, the Taoiseach said, and he then went on to say this, to create this false situation out of his own imagination: that he was not like those Members of the Opposition, the Labour Party and Fine Gael, who made speeches saying that it was possible to have further expenditure of public moneys in the way of good social services and, at the same time, do without taxation. Nobody on this side of the House, either in the Labour Party or in Fine Gael, ever made such a proposition but the Taoiseach, having created this false impression, then went on to say: "I will not stand for that. I would not do that". It was not merely nauseating but really very illuminating about the Taoiseach.

The Minister for Finance is honest and realistic but he will not tell the country how he got the country into this mess and, in order to make a point, the Taoiseach has to make a false case and then, like the pharisee, beat his breast and say: "I am not like Labour and Fine Gael. I would not think of making such a false case," when no person in this House ever made such a case. The case we made, and it is the case we still make, is that the only possible way either to decrease taxation or to get more benefits from the existing rates of taxation is to produce the conditions in this country, by means of expansion in industry and commerce and general trade; by an expansionist policy to produce wealth in the country from which, by the same or even lower rates of taxation, more money can be made available for social security and other worthwhile purposes.

That is the case we made and not the case the Taoiseach falsely tried to pretend to the public, through the medium of television, was the case made either by the Labour Party or Fine Gael. I challenge him to produce any statement by any person on this side of the House, in Fine Gael or in Labour, to justify the statement he made. At all events, that is honesty and that is the method of dealing with the matter in a realistic way, according to the Minister for Finance.

The Minister, shortly after his famous 12 lines dismissing his responsibility for bringing about the conditions I have just referred to whereby a deficit of £8 million was incurred, goes on to say that the deficit facing us in 1965-66 would grow to £12 million in 1966-67, if nothing were done about it. He said:

This would occur despite the measures of economy in current expenditure and the stabilisation of capital expenditure decided upon by the Government.

I have been unable to find anywhere what are the measures of economy in current expenditure referred to by the Minister there. Certainly, he gave no account of them at all. He gave no details of these measures of economy and I want to examine that in a few moments to see how honest and realistic this statement of the Minister is. He gave no details at all of these measures of economy. He did give details in connection with his limitations of capital expenditure but no indication was given to the country or to the Dáil of what these measures of economy were.

In the financial year, 1966-67, the country is faced with a demand for the Supply Services—leaving out all capital expenditure—amounting to the extraordinary and unprecedented total of £239,265,720. That is a pretty big sum for a small country. The Minister said that measures of economy had been taken. I would have thought that it would have been possible, out of this huge sum of over £239¼ million, to have saved at least £1 million. If it could not be done on paper at least the Minister and the Government should have ordered every Department to cut their Estimates, no matter how they did it, by at least £1 million to save taxation to that amount. I do not know what the measures of economy were. I know that in the year 1964, as perhaps Deputies will recollect, the post office charges were put up to a very high degree by a sort of second budget, and I want to refer to a speech by the Taoiseach on the Budget proposals of that year. We criticised these increases in post office charges and referred to what the Minister said. We also pointed out that the Minister said he would do something about it and wanted to know why he had not done something about it before. He said that there would be a huge drive in the post office. I ask people to test the assertion by the Minister for Finance that any economies have been brought about before this huge total for Supply Services was reached. At column 1781, of volume 208, the Taoiseach said:

The principle that the Post Office should pay for itself and not be subsidised from taxation is not merely sound but as far as I know, has never heretofore been questioned in the Dáil.

This is the passage I wish to emphasise and underline:

There is, I agree, an obligation on the Government to ensure that the cost of these services is not unduly inflated and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is now about to initiate a drive for economies in the Post Office.

That really has the ring of the Taoiseach—a drive for economies in the Post Office—

by the adjustment of the services to the reasonable needs of the people and by changes in procedure which will, it is hoped, increase individual productivity.

Let us see how that drive was brought about and what it effected. The amount required for the Post Office in that year is contained in the Book of Estimates at page 232. The Estimate for the Post Office for that year was £15,066,000. The Taoiseach, in his usual flat-footed and emphatic way, promised that there would be an immediate drive for economies in the Post Office. In the next year, 1965, the results of that drive can be seen from the fact that the Estimates for the Post Office, instead of showing any decline, increased by 30 per cent. The Estimate was for £18,747,000 and that was after the Taoiseach's drive. In the Book of Estimates for the coming year, at page 144, you will find that the Estimate is for £19,606,000, so that after the Taoiseach's very emphatic promise and undertaking to the House that he would have an immediate drive, the result of that drive, if it ever took place, was to increase charges by over £4½ million.

I mention these figures for the purpose of emphasing how little faith or trust can be reposed in the Government, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, or anybody else when they say that there were economies and that they have reduced this figure to the minimum. I do believe that with a little further effort the figure in the Book of Estimates of over £239 million for Supply Services could have been reduced by at least £1 million, and that would be very moderate. I do not believe the Minister's statement that economies were effected and I will test it by the figures for the Post Office, following the Taoiseach's undertaking. Did he have a drive? Could somebody answer that? If so, what did he drive or where did he drive? He very nearly drove the country into the sea as far as I can understand things by increasing the Post Office charges to the figure I have mentioned—£4½ million. That is a test of the Government's capacity —to put it no further—to find economies, to reduce this huge total at least by a little. In my view and in my submission it is also a measure of their boasted honesty and realism.

We all know, but it is always very hard to pinpoint, that there is a gross waste of public money. You have only to look at the things on which money is spent by the Government month after month to realise the waste. It is even worse than people think. I want to give a few examples. They are not very many but they will emphasise that there is gross waste of public money that should be stopped. Apparently all these high-class officials, these skilled financiers and economists in the Department of Finance, were not able to stop it during the last year and permitted a situation to arise, notwithstanding the tribute paid by the Minister last year, whereby the Minister is faced unexpectedly and without warning with a financial situation of the character that we have been discussing for the past few weeks.

Could the Minister inform the House what rents are being paid by the Government or his Department for the expensive blocks of offices being erected throughout the city? What is the justification for it? We all know they are expensive offices which cost a lot to build. The rents are very high indeed and would probably shock some people, if disclosed. The Minister should give these when replying in order that the people may understand how their money is being spent. That is some indication of how the deficit was brought about.

There is one premises within my own knowledge, the Leinster Nursing Home. Those premises were put up for sale by public auction, and there was a representative of the Minister for Finance present at the auction. I have forgotten what the premises fetched at the auction, but they were sold in the presence of a representative of the Department of Finance. Very shortly afterwards they were sold to the Department of Finance at a profit by the person who bought them in the presence of a representative of the same Department. Would the Minister explain that? It may be a small thing, but it is indicative.

I suppose I could make a point about the cost of the expensive Christmas cards the Minister for Agriculture sent broadcast last year, but we will pass on to something more pertinent and of greater import. Again, it is no harm to repeat what the public are asking outside—although the Fianna Fáil Party and certainly the Ministers do not like it—what is the policy in holding two elections this year? How is that to be justified in the face of the stringent financial conditions affecting the country at this time and the oppressive measures of taxation the country is expected to put up with? I suppose what I am about to say now might be said to be a trifling matter in a bill of £239¼ million, but what did it cost the Army to pull down the residue of Nelson's Pillar, which had been blown up, apparently by an organisation which the Government are unable to control? We see here in the city of Dublin the destinations on the buses in the Irish language, or in a sort of Gaelicised English language. What did that cost out of public funds and what was the necessity for it?

We are told quite casually that there has been an increase in Civil Service personnel. The Minister referred to it and I think "a few thousand" was the phrase he used. At all events, in the past few years there has been an increase in the public service of a few thousand. What is the justification for that? Anybody acquainted with the method of administering housing grants knows the appalling mess being made. It is wasteful. Inspectors are sent around to inspect these houses supposed to have qualified for the grant. Their sole purpose is— and we believe their sole instructions are—to try to make points so as to postpone the giving of the grant to people who should get it. I suppose many others know as well as I do that quite a number of rich people who are not of Irish nationality have come over here in recent years and have built themselves houses or farm dwellings. They have got grants for nothing. They have been presented with the Irish taxpayers' money without any return, even though they are wealthy and do not need the grants. We have the position where there is a means test for old age pensioners and for widows. What then is the justification for giving to rich people coming here free grants to enable them to build houses or farm dwellings? That is another way in which public money is being wastefully spent. We all know there are numbers of rich people—Irish citizens, citizens of Dublin—who have their country residences in Wicklow or some other adjoining county. They go there at weekends and other times to these premises, which are built partly at the expense of the Irish taxpayers, although the persons who build those houses are entirely capable of doing so themselves.

The Board of Works is always regarded as a joke. The waste that goes on there passes belief. You have plans drawn, scrapped and re-drawn—all at public expense—very frequently for buildings never erected and engineering schemes never even commenced. If you look at the work of the Department of Local Government, how much public money is being spent on inspectors and other public officials checking and re-checking, at public expense, the various expenditure and activities of local authorities? We have all sorts of filing and duplicate filing going on in every Government Department.

Let us give one example of what happens in connection with the Department of Industry and Commerce. Prospecting licences have become fashionable and, I am bound to say, useful in recent times. Getting these licences is an elaborate procedure and, when that is done, they are sent over to the Revenue Commissioners for stamping. At every interview or practically every interview, a Minister has to have at least a couple of civil servants present. No private business could be carried on on that basis. I am speaking subject to correction in this—perhaps the Minister will tell me—but I think the Revenue Commissioners are the only Department with modern equipment. They say they have computers and all that sort of thing. What modern steps have been taken in other Government Departments to cut down public expenditure?

These are only one or two examples. I will conclude with two more. I have mentioned in this House criticism from my own personal point of view of the amount of money spent on the roads of this country. Nobody knows the millions that have been spent. If the Minister or I have to go to Cork on professional business, it is very convenient to be able to get down much more rapidly than was previously possible because of the dual carriageway and the various other improvements made on the road between here and Cork. But that is not the point. What has been gained for the country as a whole by the expenditure of these millions? I suppose I will be told it is a grand thing for the tourists to have these fine roads. Certainly, it is not minimising traffic accidents. It may be good for the tourists to bring their cars over here, but the roads were good enough before.

I was rather struck—I will not say "appalled"—when I saw a news item on television last night about the final section of the dual carriageway between Dublin and Naas. It was referred to as if it were a matter of great public concern, and the announcer went on to say it was going to cost £600,000 and that equipment worth £250,000 was employed on it. He went on to make the sad comment that the people in some of the villages being by-passed were facing the ruin of their businesses, but—and this was the climax—it would cut off one quarter of an hour in the time it would take a motor-car to go from Dublin to Naas. In this time of financial stringency, when you cannot get a penny to buy a house, when you cannot get a penny from the banks for even worthwhile schemes, it is regarded as of sufficient importance to be announced publicly over Telefís Éireann that the last section—I do not know the length of it except from looking at it when I am going up and down—is going to cost £600,000, and that as a result of all the expenditure, the glorious feat will be achieved that one quarter of an hour has been taken off the time in getting from here to Naas.

That is bad enough, but there is another item I read—I have not got the reference here—in the Irish Independent a few weeks ago relating to the county council of Limerick. There was reference to the cost of improvements to a road between Limerick and Lisnagry, and it was publicly announced by the local authority concerned that they were going to cost £26 a yard. This is happening at a time when there is no money available for housing in the city of Dublin. The Garda Band had to be disbanded because there is no money. The bottom of the barrel has been scraped and re-scraped; yet there is expenditure of the kind to which I have referred. Does that bear out the Minister's statement to which I referred in the earlier part of my observations, that we are moving back to a strong economic position?

The provisions of this Budget—they are certainly open to this construction —bear the marks of the Government being advised to toe the line laid down by international bankers into whose grips they have brought this country for the first time. The very stringent measures in the Budget, coupled again with the threat that should never have been made, even though it may become necessary, of an autumn or a second Budget, bear all the marks of the international banker saying to the Minister: "Budget for a surplus or you will get no money from us."

Again let me see if there is any hope in this Budget. We had a loan at an unprecedented rate of seven per cent quite recently. You can now purchase that loan on the Dublin Stock Exchange at a rate which will give a return of 7¼ or 7¾ per cent. At least there is this much to be said, that if that loan is purchased on the Stock Exchange and produces that income, the Government gets a whack out of it in income tax on the dividends, and at present income tax rates it costs the Government only 13/-. However, if the Government get a loan from a foreign source, the cost to the Government of this foreign borrowing is equivalent to an internal borrowing rate of 11 per cent: you get back no income tax.

There is no incentive in this Budget and there is no stimulus to restore the economy or to try to remedy the illness from which the economy is suffering. I notice that in his Budget speech the Minister gave a passing thought to deliberately arranged deficits at column 1287, volume 221, of the Official Report of 9th March, 1966:

A deliberately arranged deficit in the current budget can in times of serious economic depression be justified as a means of reactivating the economy.

This is a well-known economic principle. As far as I know it was never put into operation in this country.

No such justification for what is called "deficit financing" exists in this country today. On the contrary, the one thing that all the recent economic commentaries emphasise is that we are suffering, not from economic depression, but from inflation—from such pressure of spending by Government and people that we have outrun our resources and are incurring too big a deficit in our balance of payments.

I suppose that is justified, but how are we to get out of that situation? Although I am not an economist, I do not think it can be controverted that we will not get out of it by increasing taxation, particularly by unnecessarily increasing income tax. The only gleam of hope for a revival of the economy is by providing a stimulus, but there is no such thing in this Budget.

It might be interesting for Deputies, as a comment upon the Minister's statement about deficit financing, to refer to a short statement in pages 271 and 272 of the book Kennedy by Theodore Sorensen. Mr. Sorensen, who was Mr. Kennedy's Secretary of State for the Treasury, was a Republican, and everybody knows the late President was a Democrat, but he was a good financier and a good economist and he gave his services to his country under the late President Kennedy. This is what Mr. Sorensen says:

In contrast with his party's traditional policies Dillon supported deficits to ease a recession, tax cuts, at a time of deficit, the closing of tax loopholes, an expansion of foreign aid and greater economic growth to finance greater budgets.

I wonder did the Minister examine those propositions. All he has said is: "I am going to give you now a £12 million deficit which must be paid for. I do not know what is going to come after that. You had an £8 million deficit last year and you will have a £12 million deficit this year." Then the Taoiseach in his broadcast said there was no possible chance of taxation being decreased. There is no break in the clouds.

I want to say a few words about the tax proposals. The outstanding tax is income tax. We hear the cliché repeated again and again that income tax is the fairest tax. I think it is an unjust tax, an oppressive tax. It is very plausible to say that the better the income, the better is the ability to stand taxation. However, unless income tax impacts upon a rich person who does not earn his money, then it is not a fair tax. In this country, in the circumstances at the present time, there are people who are suffering great misery owing to the burden of income tax upon them. Small people, people of the middle-income group, although they may get certain allowances for children, are certainly suffering from the high cost of living. They have to meet increased expenditure on their children, one way or another, because of education and so forth.

This is an unjust tax. Leaving that aside for the moment, in the conditions of our economy at the present time, income tax is the last tax that should have been increased because it depresses initiative and puts a brake on expansion. I suppose it would have been contrary to all the economic laws for the Minister to come in here and reduce taxation, but such a reduction would at least have given some hope of recovery from the disease from which the country is suffering. That should have tried every other means am putting the case as reasonably as possible when I assert that the Minister should have tried every other means before he adopted some of the taxation measures he has put forward here, and particularly that in relation to income tax.

I suppose I will be asked what I would have done. I do not know what I would have done but I suggest there were other avenues that could have been explored and the least the Minister should do now is to give us some indication that he did explore all other avenues before he imposed this oppressive taxation. I know it can be asked: Where would you get the money? An increase of 8d in the rate of income tax will bring in some £4 million. Could the Minister not have got at least £1 million of that sum by telling every Civil Service Department that the country was in a bad way, that people were heavily taxed, that business was in the doldrums and "you must reduce your expenditure to such an extent that, when every Department has done its best, £1 million of that £239¼ million will be saved in each Department." There is a way in which several millions could be saved.

That is not a matter of overestimation. The Minister says he is not making any allowance for that but we all know that in that figure of £239 million, there is some element of overestimation. The watchdogs of the Department of Finance appear to have been asleep last year; if they wake up this year and watch expenditure, they will be able to force each Department to save at least £1 million in order to save the country as a whole the burden of additional taxation and to enable that saving to be employed in the resuscitation of business and industry. That is No. 1.

I shall mention a number of items now which could, I am sure, if it were properly thought out, produce a good deal of revenue. The Minister, through the machinery of the turnover tax, has taxed dancehalls. Double or treble that taxation would get my entire approval. Why did he not do that? Everybody knows that dancehalls are making any amount of money. There are bingo halls all over the place. Why should they not be taxed? Why should gambling not be taxed? Has the Minister considered a matter upon which I spoke at length last year? I refer to the people engaged in business and industry with their prestige cars and their expense allowances. I spoke at length about these last year. I gave facts and figures which would appal any right thinking person. I gave the cost of a luncheon for some of these business people in some of the hotels in this city. Could the Minister not get some revenue from some of these items? Doubtless I shall be told it would not be worth while. It would at least produce some revenue and it would produce, I believe, sufficient revenue to alleviate a situation which requires alleviation.

I am informed that there is an allowance of £120 for income tax purposes for dependent relatives up to 16 years of age. In that category are included mentally handicapped and mentally retarded children. When such children reach the age of 16, the allowance is reduced by half, to £60. I mention mentally retarded children specifically because I received a letter from a gentleman asking me to raise the matter in this House. Such a child will remain a dependent relative all its life and surely that allowance of £120 should continue after the child reaches 16 years of age? It seems unpardonable to reduce that allowance in that way when one remembers the allowances made for income tax purposes in the case of business people and industrialists, with their prestige cars and their expense accounts.

Could the Minister not review in the light of experience the various items that are subject to turnover tax? We objected to that tax. We still very properly object to it because it applies to everything. It applies to the necessaries of life as well as to luxuries. Would it not be possible to use the machinery of the turnover tax to increase the tax on luxuries? That should produce some revenue. Would it not be possible to increase the tax on long-playing records, transistors, cosmetics, jewellery, furs, and so on? Would it not be possible to tax these items? Oh, no. I know the answer that will be given by the Revenue Commissioners. I had experience of it in the first Government of this State. They will say it is administratively impossible or difficult, and let them not be asked to do it. That gives the key. Deputy Corish referred to this. Instead of exercising some imagination and doing a little extra work, the Revenue Commissioners take what are called the traditional taxes and put them up to the Minister.

Taking the traditional taxes is the traditional method of producing revenue. Taking the traditional taxes is taking the line of least resistance and it was through taking the line of least resistance last year that they rocked the economy of the country through the proposals embodied in last year's Budget and Finance Act. I refer to estate duty and the measures taken to prevent people giving their children their savings two or three years before death. I have given my view as to how some of this taxation could be raised in another way. I mention it to show that there are methods other than the traditional methods of raising taxation.

We have had no indication that anything other than the line of least resistance was adopted. Income tax is the easiest tax in the world to collect but it is not very easy for those who have to work hard and whose earned income allowance is so small and so insignificant and upon whom the burden is so oppressive as to constitute an injustice. If there were proper allowances for children and for earned income, then there might be some case for an increase in income tax. However, the outstanding consideration at the moment ought to be that an increase in income tax will have the effect of further depressing the economy this year.

If the rate of income tax were reduced, or if it were not increased, there would be an incentive to business people, to industry, to work harder, to get some sort of push to remedy the depressed conditions obtaining at the moment. Increased taxation at this time will mean only increased depression. We on this side held the view, and it was a sound one which we put into practice, that a Budget should be an instrument of economic policy. In present circumstances, by the method introduced by the Minister for Finance, the Budget is merely a machine to collect taxes and all it will do is enable the Minister to say: "We closed the gap; we filled the hole." There will not be any deficit but equally there will not be any benefit to the country or the economy.

I made some suggestions about taxes on luxuries and indicated the kind of things that would produce revenue. I think the Minister could very properly consider putting a tax on travellers' cheques. I am all for Irish people going abroad. It is good for their education; it broadens their view and makes them more content with their own country to see all the things we have and others have not. However, if the people wish to go abroad and take their money away with them, they should be taxed on it and this tax would contribute to an economic situation in which there would not be so much need to increase income tax.

A further suggestion I make for expanding the economy is saving. Before touching on that subject, however, I should like to consider exports. When the Resolution dealing with the tax on spirits was going through, I made a comment for the consideration of the Taoiseach who was taking the place of the Minister for Finance at the time. I suggested that whiskey was the heaviest commodity from the point of view of tax imposition and I suggested to the Taoiseach that instead of putting that tax on whiskey, he ought at least to consider the position of the whiskey manufacturers and the job they are doing for our exports. We all agree that our export trade is vital; yet the Budget does not do anything for exports.

In so far as whiskey exporters are concerned, I suggest there should be at least some incentive by way of reduced taxation for that portion of their profits which results from exports. The Taoiseach amazed me when he appeared to ask what was wrong with putting 4/6d a gallon on whiskey for home markets. I was taken aback by that statement. The Taoiseach must at some time have heard that you cannot have an export trade unless you have a sound, prosperous, progressive home trade. If you do not allow the whiskey manufacturers a concession, what you are doing is increasing their taxation on a commodity already overburdened by tax and preventing them from increasing their export trade. There is a market in America and elsewhere for Irish whiskey. It will require a lot of getting at, but unless we get more exports, we will go down in the same way as any other country without exports.

That is an essential overlooked by the Taoiseach: you must have a good home trade or you will not have a good export trade, and you will not have a good home trade if you depress it by too much taxation. That is what this Budget will do. Instead of providing many more incentives and reliefs for those who engage in the export trade, this Budget will depress the economy. The reform that produced the more enduring and concrete results was the export tax relief introduced during the time when we as an Inter-Party Government were suffering from one of the worst economic blizzards that ever hit the country. Not only that, but at the time the terms of trade were against us and the Suez Canal incident also disrupted our industry, not only through the unrest it created but because petrol was in short supply. That tax was introduced by us and it brought about a great increase in the export trade to the benefit of the country.

I do not mention that merely to take any credit for it but to point out that we did it because we thought it was a good thing. In doing it, we were subjected to the derision of Deputy Lemass, as he then was, and other members of Fianna Fáil. In spite of them, it produced wonderful results from the point of view of the prosperity of the country. We also introduced the Prize Bonds. At the time, 1956, there was in existence a system of grants for undeveloped areas. Through the late Deputy Norton, we introduced the Industrial Grants Act for the purpose of establishing an efficient industrial arm. The results can be shown to have been beneficial. In that year we introduced important reforms in taxation on mining. The results are now apparent because pretty well the whole of the country has been subjected by experts from abroad to tests as to its mining capacity and potentiality. Some of the major mining companies in the world have prospected here and four major mineral discoveries have been made.

In this Budget there is no incentive to help the export trade without which we will go down still further in the economic drift. None of the things we introduced is continued in this Budget. I do not wish to boast about them, only to show the effects they could have if the Minister saw fit to follow up the headlines we set. It was mentioned recently, I think, by Deputy T. F. O'Higgins, that one of the necessities for economic survival is proper skilled management. It was pointed out by Deputy O'Higgins that the tax rates for executives in that capacity and of those skills in Ireland are far greater than in socialist Britain. Such skilled management executives could easily be attracted over here by giving them additional relief in the form of earned income allowances. There should be export tax reliefs enjoyed by all those people engaged in the export business, and not only by the firms but by the individuals engaged in the export business who have helped us to succeed in increasing our exports. In so far as an industry or a business succeeds in creating additional foreign markets, there should be additional earned income allowances, giving £1 for £1 what they helped to create in foreign markets.

There is a policy in this matter of helping exports that might be copied from the Australians who are trying to get new markets in Great Britain. Apart from the technique necessarily employed by people who want to increase exports, they use the BBC. That is a costly piece of necessary expenditure. The people who successfully work to get increased markets in Great Britain should be allowed, against their income tax, a double rebate of some kind to meet this expenditure on television.

I repeat that we have nothing in this Budget to deal with the necessity for increasing our exports or encouraging them by way of incentives or otherwise. We should have employed here —and the Minister should do it as soon as he can—a strategy of optimistic and long-term encouragement practically given by practical incentives. I saw a letter in the newspaper recently where a man contended that if you are rich enough, you were in a position to employ sufficient expert help—accountants, solicitors or anyone you like—to advise and put into practice a variety of methods by which you can deprive yourself of the privilege of having to pay income tax up to a certain amount.

Let me give an example. If a rich man enters into a covenant to pay £300 a year for seven years or more to a poorer relation, the £300 is taken off his income tax and is regarded as the income of the poorer relation. Therefore if he is in the highest bracket from the point of view of income tax, that would cost him only 5/6 in the £ or £82. 10.0. a year. But supposing he is desirous of helping a charity and enters into a covenant with a charity concerned with the rehabilitation of people suffering from incapacity of one kind or another, he will not get any allowance at all.

If the Minister could see his way— I do not see any indication of his having even considered the question of entering into covenants with the people I have mentioned—to relieve them of paying income tax, as exists in other countries, great benefits would accrue to the country. There would be a great increase in the incomes of voluntary bodies and there would be less likelihood of waste than there would be in the case of bodies run by Government. Moneys which are at present given out in subsidies could be saved and, of course, it is beyond doubt that if moneys were given direct to charities it would be very much more beneficial to the charities than if they were collected by the taxpayer, handed over to another set of officials and, perhaps, a third set of officials distributing the charity.

The third matter to which I referred as being necessary for economic recovery was confidence. That is beyond all doubt. There must be confidence in the country or no loans will be forthcoming. There will not be any possible chance of expansion in industry or business unless that confidence exists and it does not exist at the present time. There is no doubt that there is serious unrest in the country at the present time. Deputy Norton spoke about people criticising the trade unions. I am not blaming the trade unions but there is no doubt that there is serious industrial unrest. It is more than mere industrial unrest. In my view young people at the present time have no particular confidence in the future of this country. They have nothing, so to speak, to rouse their enthusiasm. They go to dances and purchase the commodities I referred to earlier which could be taxed. They earn fairly good money and they spend it on dances, long-playing records, pop shows etc. but they have no particular interest in giving their youth or enthusiasm to the country.

I think one of the reasons for that is the way the Government are carrying on at the present time. In my view, the Government carry on for the benefit of the Fianna Fáil Party and not for the benefit of the people in general. The younger people are wondering what Party they should join. Most of them are playing around with this consideration which, in my view, is very bad from the point of view of the public interest. They see that no man or woman can get a job unless he or she belongs to a Fianna Fáil cumann. That is causing very serious trouble in the country.

I can assure the Deputy that it does not happen in my constituency.

The Deputy can take it that it happens in my constituency.

That is a dishonest statement.

I could tell the Deputy the name of a lorry driver who appointed a postman.

I do not know anything about Deputy Andrews's constituency. I am speaking from my own experience in these matters.

The Deputy is condemning the Fianna Fáil Party and I think it is a wrong condemnation.

Anybody will tell you that at the present time. Whether true or not, it is believed to be so anyway.

Deputy J.A. Costello is not helping the situation.

That is one of the reasons why the Government cannot get a unified effort around the country to deal with the difficulties facing the country. I have heard Ministers calling for a unified effort but they will not get that unified effort when the Government are working, not for the country as a whole but for the Fianna Fáil Party. In my view, it is essential that the Government work for all and that is one of the causes of the present unrest. Confidence is shaken. It certainly is not sufficiently strong to enable businesses to get on, exports to be made or encourage people to come here from abroad and invest their money in this country. There is that lack of confidence and it was exacerbated by the statement of the Minister for Finance in his Budget that it was impossible to forecast what the twelve months ahead would bring. There can be little confidence when there is the possibility of more taxation and other taxes being imposed which would affect businesses.

The last matter I want to mention concerns credit and the banks. The Minister for Finance said—I cannot put my finger on the exact quotation— in effect, that he intended to secure, by means of consultations or arrangements with the Central Bank, a reasonable and proper supply of credit for the country through the commercial banks. I do not know what that means. The Minister ought to have told us, and I hope he will tell us before this debate concludes, of the arrangement by which he proposes to regulate the giving of credit—the purposes for which credit will be given and the amount, extent and scope—by the commercial banks, in co-operation with the Central Bank. The people are entitled to know that. There is great unrest about the present position. You cannot get a penny in any bank at the moment for any scheme. I want to know when that situation will cease. I want to know, even more than that—because it is essential if we are to create confidence—if steps are being taken by the Minister with the Central Bank to prevent the banks from doing what they did to us in 1956 and what they did to the present Government last year and the year before that.

In the second term of our office, everything looked perfect. I remember making a speech here on the Taoiseach's Estimate and giving an account of the amount of credit advanced by the banks of this country, which was supposed to be a very good thing. The Dáil listened to what I had to say. I regarded it as a good point to make to show how well we were doing. The next year, the whole thing was changed. The banks were giving out credit for anything—for buying a motor car, not to talk of buying a bicycle. Then, suddenly, they closed down and you could get nothing even for the most worthwhile projects. I want to know what steps the Government will take to bring an end to that sort of situation. I want to know what steps they will take to see to it that the commercial banks will act in a regular way and will not bring about the position they have brought about twice in my experience in the past 12 or 15 years. We want that information. The country is entitled to get that information. The business people are entitled to know that they can walk into a bank and will not be put in the position in which they were put on two occasions when they could get money for any purpose whatsoever, productive or otherwise, and then, suddenly, without warning, were told that they could not get even a penny for productive purposes.

Clarendon Street Church is falling down at the present time. The monks are living in the basement. Not one penny is being given by the bank to help that situation. I want to know when that sort of thing will stop. I want to know what will happen. The banks must be brought to a realisation that they cannot do this to the country.

I remember the occasion when the chairman of the Royal Bank first announced that credit would be restricted. The Minister over there denied that there was any restriction of credit at the time: I am not suggesting they knew anything to the contrary. However, it shows that, at a time when the chairman of one of the banks announced that the banks would restrict credit, the Government bona fide, announced that there were no such measures. Up to that, there had been the same sort of flaithiúil attitude towards customers in regard to credit for any purpose as was the position prior to 1956. We are entitled to demand from the Government that that situation will not occur for a third time. When the Minister refers to the sort of reasonable control or direction in relation to credit which he hopes to get from the Central Bank, he certainly ought to clarify the position and let us know where we stand.

This is a bad Budget. It holds out no hope for anybody. We want something different. We want something which will not halt our progress. I do not want the Minister to stick out his chest and to say that the country is basically and constitutionally sound. I do not want any unfounded optimism. The Minister said he is a realist. I do not find any realism in this Budget. I should be glad to have some indication of what the Minister proposes to do to remedy the present financial position in the country.

At this stage of the debate, the views of the Labour Party on the Budget itself, on the proposals for additional taxation contained therein and on the proposals for reliefs, if they can be termed as such, have been made known by the Leader of the Labour Party in this House and other speakers from these benches. The views of this Party have also been voiced on the administrative and financial affairs of the country as they obtained prior to the introduction of the Budget and which possibly made the introduction of a Budget of this kind necessary. Therefore, I intend to be as brief as possible, bearing in mind also the fact that some other members of this Party wish to contribute to the debate and that the time is limited.

Like all other new Members of this House, my entry into public life was followed immediately by the first stirrings of public awareness of the fact that the path to prosperity, along which some of the people of this country were progressing, was about to lead nowhere and was about to become strewn with obstacles. I am only too well aware that there are people amongst us who never had an opportunity of starting out on that path to prosperity, but there are others who, it would appear, were provided with a privileged path along which they are still travelling. For the people in my constituency, and in the constituencies of other Members of this House, who were travelling that path or believed they were travelling that path to prosperity, many new and unaccustomed problems presented themselves about this time last year, immediately after the general election. Many of the people whom I have the honour to represent found themselves hastily retracing their steps on that path to prosperity and for some of them, it meant a very sharp decline in their circumstances.

I shall deal very briefly with the problems the people in my constituency had to face immediately after the last general election. Many of my constituents lost their jobs following that election. In some instances—as, in the case of Cork county, the local authority—the employers could no longer raise the necessary finances to enable them to purchase the raw materials which made the jobs of certain individuals possible and there was a steep decline in employment. Many others, egged on by the hope of prosperity, were building their own homes in the assurance that the loans would be forthcoming. Without those loans, they would not have embarked on that work, necessary though it was. Suddenly they found that the loans were no longer available and subsequently that the interest rates were more than they had budgeted for.

Many others were living in hopes that they would be one of the lucky one in six who would become tenants of local authority houses. I think that is a fair estimation of the number of local authority houses which were being built in recent years in proportion to the need for houses. People came to us planning to improve roads and passageways to their houses, and we had to tell them that grants from the emergency schemes office were no longer available. For all Deputies, new and experienced, this has been a year of utter frustration.

What confused and surprised me was the fact that when those who spoke before me in this debate attempted to air the grievances of the people whom they have the honour to represent, the Taoiseach was most indignant, and absolutely horrified that they should question any proposals he had in mind. The Taoiseach has earned for himself, particularly over the past year, a reputation second to none for changing his mind. He has changed his mind in regard to price control. Last year he scoffed at the idea of price control and now it is an established fact. To my mind, the fact that the Taoiseach and the Government are now operating something in which they do not fundamentally believe—because the Taoiseach has stated quite recently that he still does not believe in price control—is an admission of utter failure. The fact that the Labour Party believe that price control is essential does not alter that fact.

The Taoiseach has changed his mind with regard to an incomes policy —or has he? That is the question. I wonder if he does not hold the same views, modified only in so far as his policy refers to wages. Conscious of the Taoiseach's recent reputation for changing his mind, I should like Deputies to take the trouble to check back on his reaction to a somewhat similar economic situation in 1956. Deputy Costello has stated that the two problems cannot be equated, but that is not my purpose in referring back to the Taoiseach's reaction in 1956. I do not intend making a case for the Government of 1956, but I merely want to give the Taoiseach's reaction in 1956, and his attitude towards problems of that nature should not have altered radically. If it held good in 1956, it should hold good today.

In 1956, the then Deputy Lemass condemned out of hand the inter-Party Government primarily for their failure to keep down prices, coupled with their failure to increase savings. I do not intend to quote what he said but it was something like this. He said that people were spending rather than saving, that prices had risen so greatly, and money had depreciated to such an extent, that those people—and by that I suppose he meant those people who would normally have money to save—saw no point in saving, and spent their money. Surely if that held true then, the Taoiseach should not now be so intolerant of the criticism levelled against him now. My reason for mentioning that is that I believe the Government have not learned from their own mistakes or the mistakes of other Governments in the past. That is my main criticism of the Government, and my main reason for referring to what the Taoiseach said ten years ago.

Coming up to date, the Taoiseach— I think it was the week before last— intervened in this Budget debate and among other things he said that he interpreted the action of the Parties who voted against the Budget's increased taxation proposals as indicative of their desire to pull back on the social welfare increases granted last year. When the Budget was before the House last year, we in the Labour Party made our position pretty clear. Our approach was constructive and we made it clear that though we disapproved basically of indirect taxation, we were prepared to vote for that taxation, provided the benefits accrued to the social welfare recipients. We went further and made it clear that we wanted those increased benefits to come into operation at once, and that we were prepared to vote for the taxation which was necessary to bring the increased benefits into operation at once.

Surely the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Government cannot expect us, or any Opposition, to go on year after year voting for increased taxation to finance the reliefs which were granted in the previous Budget? It would be a very effective way of stifling and silencing opposition for ever, if the Government were to bring in a minor relief in one year and vindicate any taxation that might arise in a future year by saying that it was to finance that relief. I am afraid that is something that, much as the Taoiseach would appear to like it, he will not get from either of the Opposition Parties.

Again in 1956, the then Deputy Lemass said that the increase then imposed on the price of petrol would hit every industry which required to use road transport in their day to day affairs, and that it would naturally result in increasing prices a good deal further. The extraordinary thing is that he sees no such implication now. He envisages a small increase in the cost of living as a result of all the Budget impositions, but back in 1956, he had no hesitation in suggesting that increasing the price of petrol would send prices soaring still higher.

The Labour Party in particular were taken to task for their opposition to the increase in income tax. I think it was the Taoiseach who said that in 1956 we voted for a much higher rate of income tax—7/6d in the £. The Labour Party are not a bit embarrassed about that. We would vote for 7/6d in the £ again and probably for a higher rate. We believe in direct taxation. Some time ago Deputy Costello pinpointed some of the difficulties arising from income tax as a form of taxation, but providing adequate reliefs are given at the bottom of the scale, we think it a much more equitable system than indirect taxation which hits the necessaries of life, and which hits all sections of the community, those who are able to bear it and those who are not able to bear it. Our position in regard to income tax has been made clear by other speakers who have already contributed to this debate, and I do not propose to dwell further on it.

I should like to mention the additional relief of £30 which is being granted to parents with children between the ages of 11 and 16 years to relieve the hardship of providing education for those children. We welcome that. We welcome any relief in taxation —every Party welcomes any relief in taxation—that will relieve the hardship of providing education, but I do not think this will tackle the basic problem at all. The basic problem is the low participation in education by those at the lower end of the social scale. We had a recent report on education, which we quote possibly too often, but it referred in particular—I think this was the most enlightening aspect of it —to the social group comprising semiskilled workers and it said that their children were not participating, in proportion to their numbers, in postprimary education. In fact, it referred back to 1961 when only 29.16 per cent of the children of this group were participating in education at the age of 14 years and 8.9 per cent between the ages of 15 and 19 were participating in education.

This is the basic problem and the one which we should be tackling. The relief is welcome but it simply gets at the middle of the problem and not where it should be tackled. This year we should really have been putting some proposals forward for improvements of that nature. We should have been hearing something about reliefs in income tax for those who might be in employment and who want to further their own education. We hear a great deal of talk about our labour force being under-educated. We want a great number of technicians by 1970 —we are short of these skills—but by that time we will have fallen far behind in our educational requirements in the labour force. There is great need for those already in employment to resume their education and come up to date in it. That has been very much stressed before. The practical thing to do would be to give some benefits by way of relief in income tax in order to allow those people to charge the amount of money spent on education of that nature in the column for relief in income tax.

Away back in 1956, Deputy Childers made a speech which I happened to read recently. I do not always agree with him but I agree with what he said on that occasion. He said he had made a general survey of Dutch agricultural education. We all know that in Holland they have the highest yield for crops per year. They discovered that about 20,000 primary school children do an elementary course in agriculture. They do a practical course in agriculture. This is the first thing we should do. In fact, it should have been done ten years ago. We have now come to the stage where, as a result of the recent Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement, we will depend to a greater degree on agriculture. It will tide us over the period we are now entering. That being so, the Government should have hearkened to the warnings of the Minister for Transport and Power away back when he said that more attention should be given to agricultural education. A practical step towards education would be proposals such as a manpower policy, the introduction of a proper system of education and tax concessions for those who want to further their education. There is no proper planning being made and there is no proposal for any such planning contained in the Budget Statement or any of the statements made by the Taoiseach or his Ministers within the past few months.

Before I leave the subject of income tax, I was amazed to discover quite recently that agricultural workers attached to the Department of Agriculture in Cork, and I presume everywhere else, do not, in fact, enjoy the benefits of PAYE. Those are very good workers and it is fantastic to suggest that those people should be taxed at the standard rate while people in other employment throughout the country have the benefits of PAYE. I have tabled a question for the Minister about this matter, which I hope will be answered during the present week. I hope this answer will be one which will give some hope of relief to those people who, to my mind, are unfairly taxed. The Government should set a pattern with regard to their employees.

A great deal of publicity has been given to the fact that enormous increases have been given to civil servants. That is true in the case of some civil servants but unfortunately an impression has been created in the public mind that all civil servants enjoy salaries of £2,000 a year and upwards. I have a natural affinity to civil servants but I know several of them in every Department of the State who are now working for £7, £8, £9 and £10 a week. There is far too great a gap between the various salary scales and the various grades in the Civil Service. The Government should set a pattern of grading which could be followed in private industry. It is up to the Government now to do what they should have done a long time ago, that is, to narrow those gaps. They should narrow the enormous gaps which exist in various incomes and set a pattern for the rest of the community. The people at the lower end of the salary scales are those who have to bear the brunt of additional taxation.

I do not need to dwell any longer on this subject and, as I already stated, I will be as brief as possible. Reliefs in this Budget amount to £2.6 million out of a total Budget of additional taxation of £12.7 million. This simply means that the relativity of incomes in this country will become more and more unrealistic. The Taoiseach's favourite criticism of the Labour Party of late, and I suppose down through the years, is that we are living in the past. I would say to him and to his Ministers that if we are, we have plenty of company. Due to his own and his Government's out-of-date concept of social justice, every low-paid worker, every small farmer and every small shopkeeper is living in the past. Their standard of living has been static and their position has deteriorated because every scheme initiated by this Government is designed to give the greatest benefits to those who, because of their already greater means, can avail of them.

We are very proud to be associated with the people with whom the Taoiseach associates us. The plain answer is to improve their standard of living, but so long as the Government insist on imposing taxation on those people whose standard of living we want to see improved, they will have to contend with that opposition from the Labour Party. Finally, I want to say that the Taoiseach and many members of the Government during this debate have repeated the fact that the people of this country have given their Party the responsibility for guiding our affairs during this difficult patch in our history. The obvious answer to that is that if the people had had any idea that this difficult patch was coming before the last general election, they certainly would not have entrusted the guidance of their affairs into the hands of the Taoiseach and his Ministers.

Down through the centuries, famous men have made famous statements which will always be associated with them and I think the statement: "What went wrong with my Budget of 1965?" will always be associated with the present Minister for Finance. Away back in the early 1930s, the trainer of a famous world heavyweight champion was asked, after his prodigy had been defeated: "What went wrong?" and his reply was: "We wus robbed." That is the only answer the Irish people can give to the Minister's question: "What went wrong with my Budget?" Something that bears out what people are inclined to say is a reply given by the Minister for Finance to Deputy Governey on the 16th of this month. The Deputy asked the Minister the names of the State companies from which the Exchequer borrowed money in the past 12 months and the amount borrowed from each company and the reply he got was that the Government borrowed from the ESB the sum of £5,750,000 and paid back to the ESB £6,750,000, £1 million more than they borrowed. They borrowed from the Irish Life Assurance Company, a company not unknown to the Government, a sum of £1,250,000. They were a little unlucky as they got back £1,100,000 so that there is £150,000 still due to them. They borrowed from Aer Lingus £1,713,000. What did they pay back? — £3,621,300. They borrowed from Irish Shipping £250,000 and they have paid back nothing yet. They borrowed £500,000 from the Industrial Credit Company Limited and they have paid back £500,000. They borrowed £500,000 from the Agricultural Credit Corporation and they have paid back only £200,000.

It is hard for the farmer to get anything.

A most peculiar thing is that they were asked what they borrowed from Bord na Móna and the reply was "Nothing, but we paid them back £500,000." How can anybody make any sense out of a reply like this to a simple question asking the names of the State companies from which the Exchequer had borrowed money and how much in each case?

There is one consolation: the semi-State bodies have been fairly successful.

Evidently they have been much more successful than the Government were when looking for a loan in America. I shall deal with that later. There has been a lot of talk about the honesty of the Taoiseach who was interviewed on television by a journalist, as Deputy Costello described him. One of the questions the journalist asked was: "Is it true, as has been said, that this is an all-take Budget?" The Taoiseach replied: "Not at all; we are giving 5/- each per week to the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans and those in receipt of unemployment assistance——" and he suddenly dropped his voice and said: "without means." He did not emphasise the fact that it was only paupers who would get the 5/- a week. The only person I know without means, that is, without a roof over his head to call his own, is the person in the county home. They are the people who will benefit from this Budget.

Some years ago when relief was given to the poorer classes in a Fianna Fáil Budget, in the form of ½d. on the loaf, Deputy Oliver Flanagan described it as a halfpenny Budget. In my opinion, this Budget may rightly be described as the paupers' Budget because the only people who will benefit are the paupers, those without means. I fear that a good many will be made paupers if this Budget is implemented.

One must consider the record figure that is sought in the Budget by the Government. I remember the present occupant of Áras an Uachtaráin sitting over here when Deputy Sweetman was introducing the Budget in 1956, standing up prior to leaving the House and looking across at the Government benches and saying: "We have reached the limit of taxation." I wonder what his thoughts must be today when he sees a Budget introduced for £329,265,750. Additional taxation has since been introduced. The Budget was not ten days old, and while we were in the process of debating it here, there were banner headlines in the papers telling us of an increase in bus fares and transport charges, and increases coming, I understand, in Aer Lingus and the British and Irish Company, now owned by this State.

In this morning's papers, we read of a further tax whereby the countryman whose sole pastime and only luxury was catching brown trout in mountain streams will have to pay a licence if he wishes to continue to indulge in the luxury he has indulged in down the years. It is no small tax, according to the morning paper; he will have to pay a fairly substantial sum for the right to attach a worm to a twisted pin and insert it in the stream flowing through his native townland. It is true that exemption is granted to those under 21 but once you reach 21, you must pay for your fun in a way you never did before by additional taxation announced, not in the Budget but outside it. That taxation will come into effect in the coming season.

You must bring your birth certificate along when you go fishing.

No, it is worse. Under this Bill we are departing from the old axiom in law that a man is innocent until proved guilty. Under this Bill and under the last Fisheries Act, all you need do now is charge a man and then the onus shifts from the prosecution to the defence and it becomes the task of the defence to prove he is innocent. Sometimes I wish somebody would challenge the constitutionality of the legislation being introduced.

We are told that the country—I am referring now briefly to the speech of a senior Deputy of Fianna Fáil, Deputy P.J. Burke; I shall refer to him later on in another context, I hope —should be very proud of our financial position and of our economic and political philosophy and should try to assist it as far as possible. In saying that, he forgets, or possibly the House has not been told, that he is only one of the 13 Fianna Fáil speakers who have stood up to defend this Budget. Of the total number of Government Deputies, only 13 have attempted to justify the Budget.

And very briefly.

I have not read of any cumann meeting yet at which they told of the benefits which would flow from the Budget. When they address cumann meetings now, they usually refer to the 1916 celebrations or possibly drag a red herring such as the Taoiseach dragged the other night in Limerick about amendments of the Constitution. There is no word about the Budget. It is not even mentioned. Thirteen gentlemen, well briefed—and I will refer to their briefs later on when I come to deal with Deputy Burke— spoke in favour of the Budget. As against that, 19 out of 48 Fine Gael Deputies have spoken and 11 Labour Deputies out of 20 have spoken—a very high percentage. Practically 50 per cent of Labour and Fine Gael Deputies have spoken and only 13 out of 72 Fianna Fáil Deputies have contributed to the debate. That is what they think of the Budget.

Since the Government came into office, a lot of time has been spent debating many matters which were really not relevant or pertinent to the issues. Since 1961 we have read or heard of more White Papers than were ever introduced since the State was founded. In 1961, there were three Government White Papers issued: one on the EEC, one on direct taxation and one on the marketing of Irish butter in Britain. In 1962, there were two White Papers: one on the progress of sea fisheries development and one on the EEC. In 1963, there was a White Paper called Closing the Gap, a White Paper on direct taxation and the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, Part I. In 1964, there was the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, Part II. In 1965, there was a paper on the restoration of the Irish language.

A Deputy

A very good thing.

Excellent. We got the facts about the Irish language on 16th March last, the day before St. Patrick's Day. Deputy Lindsay asked the Minister for the Gaeltacht the number of pupils who qualified for the Irish-speaking grant in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965; in other words, within the past five years. The reply he got makes interesting reading. It was that the numbers were: 9,111 in 1961-62; 8,721 in 1962-63; 8,357 in 1963-64; 8,156 in 1964-65. There has been a drop of almost 1,000 in the number of pupils receiving the Gaeltacht deontas, as it is known.

Would that be an economy or does it represent a decline in the use of the Irish language?

I am afraid that it represents a decline in the numbers in the Gaeltacht areas. We had a White Paper on it and we have a Minister now looking after it. This occurred during a period when there was all the talk about prosperity. You see there the decline in the number of students attending school in the Gaeltacht.

Let us look at housing. On 18th May of last year, we asked the Minister if he would state the number of private dwellings and local authority dwellings erected in this State between 1954 and 1965, inclusive. We find, dealing with local authority housing, that in 1954, when the inter-Party Government were in power, there were 5,643 houses built; in 1955, 5,267; in 1956, 4,011; in 1957, 4,784. Then the inter-Party Government went out of office. From a figure of 4,784, the number dropped the following year to 3,467 and the following year, to 1,812. Then it went up to 2,414, dropped again to 1,463, down to 1,238 the following year, 1,828 the year after that and 1,856 in 1964. It did go up to 2,306 in 1965, which is exactly half the number of houses which the inter-Party Government built in their last year in office.

The figures for contributions paid under the Social Welfare Acts are used sometimes by the Government to show increased numbers of persons in employment. I will quote the amount paid by the employers. The sum of £2,972,000 was paid by the employers in 1956-57. In 1965-66, the figure shot up to £8,214,000; in other words, practically four times as much has been paid by way of contributions as between 1956-57 and 1965-66 while the number of persons employed has fallen. There again one sees where money is being taken out of the hands of both employers and employees as a direct result of the policy of the Government.

On the question of economies, I remember Dr. Ryan introducing his first Budget here in 1957 and I remember the Fianna Fáil Party cheering when he announced that he was going to look into the question of the Civil Service and endeavour to reduce the number of civil servants. Admittedly, there has been a fall in population since 1957. On 16th March last, Deputy L'Estrange asked if the Minister would state in respect of each of the following years, 1956-57 to 1965-66, the number of civil servants employed and the cost of the Civil Service. The reply makes interesting reading. The figures were: 1957, 30,723; 1958, 30,285; 1959, 28,039; 1960, 28,108; 1961, 29,081; 1962, 28,910; 1963, 29,728. Admittedly, there was a steady decrease in the numerical strength of the Civil Service between 1957 and 1963, but then, in 1964, what happened? The number increased to 30,383 and in 1965, it was 31,675 and in 1966, 32,626—2,000 more than the number employed in 1957—and the cost of the Civil Service has risen from £15.26 million in 1957 to £27.45 million in 1966. The cost has practically doubled since Fianna Fáil went into office at the expiration of the period of office of the inter-Party Government. These are the facts, these are the figures, given by the Minister in reply to questions.

We hear a great deal about free trade. We are told what a marvellous thing this Free Trade Agreement will be. One would imagine that we never had free trade in this country before. Of course, we had free trade up to 1932. The British took our cattle up to 1932 and we had to pay no subsidy. They took our butter and were damned glad to eat it without a subsidy and they gave us ten per cent preference up to 1932. Then, of course, we had the advent of Fianna Fáil and one of the things Fianna Fáil did was to give the farmers 10/- for cutting the throats of their calves. Then we had a complete reversal of policy and now we have Fianna Fáil giving the farmers £15 for an extra heifer in calf. They gave them 10/- to do away with calves and now they are giving the £15 to keep them. Not only that, but we are paying the British Government £4,600,000 to eat our butter.

With a shamrock.

With a shamrock.

Why did we have to take 1/- off the old age pensions?

I will tell the Deputy why. It was because we had not got the Fianna Fáil Party here until we got them in in 1927 and they were in no way constructive to the Government, or the State, between 1922 and 1927 and we had to pay for the damage they had done. Does that answer the question?

We had to find money somewhere.

You said conditions were good.

They were quite good. We had free access to the British market without any flagwaving.

Of course, it was a mistake.

Of course, it was a mistake. We have done away with something which it took the British 600 years to acquire. We have done away with it in 60 days and it will take a long time to get it back. We are doing our best but at a very heavy cost to the taxpayers. We pay the British to eat our butter when the Irish people are eating Summer County margarine.

With a shamrock.

With a shamrock. Before the Budget was introduced a paper which never displays very much sympathy towards the Fine Gael Party —or should I say it displays quite a lot of sympathy towards the Fianna Fáil Party, in case my friend Deputy Corish might be offended—the Irish Catholic, printed a leading article which began:

The Twenty-Six Counties is in need. It has had to go into the foreign money market looking for millions of pounds to enable it to pay, among other things, the everincreasing interest on previous borrowings. But it has not found foreign money-lenders any too keen to help it out of its difficulties by advancing foreign currency, despite generous interest rates.

Apart from the need to continue paying the interest on previous loans, the Twenty-Six Counties wants money, and plenty of it, to continue its programme of lavish spending which it shows no inclination to curtail. In the same breath in which Government spokesmen warn the people that they are spending too much and demanding too much of the national economy, they announce new plans for State spending of the most lavish type.

In order to continue with its spending, the State must get money somewhere. The home taxpayer is a readier source of supply than the foreign money-lender, and we have accordingly been promised tax increases in the forthcoming Budget. We can only hope that these will not be punitive.

Meanwhile both the Bank of Ireland and the Central Bank are concerned about the evidence of a decline in savings. In a roundabout way the Central Bank quarterly bulletin gives statistics showing that deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank have dropped and that, in contrast to 1964, there were more withdrawals than deposits there in 1965.

That is from the editorial in the Irish Catholic of the 3rd March, before the Budget was introduced, and then of course we had the Budget. Verily, they were soothsayers, these people, and I will deal with soothsayers later on. One sees in that the answer to the question posed by the Minister as to what went wrong with the Budget of 1965. Any student of elementary economics could have told us what the answer was. From figures given by the Minister's Department we are told that 14,000 people left the land and there are 7,000 fewer employed, despite the fact that contributions have gone up. Now, that is on the human side.

Let us have a look at another side, the agricultural side. I am sure Deputy O'Connor will be interested in this. Take oats, for instance. In 1954 there were 533,000 acres, roughly, under oats and in 1964 this had dropped to 288,600 acres, or almost half the acreage. That was in ten years. Take wheat. In 1954 we had 486,400 acres of wheat and in 1964 that had dropped to 214,400. In other words, the acreage showed a drop of almost 272,000 acres in 1964 over what there was in 1954.

Our adverse trade balance last year stood at £147 million. That is the position we find ourselves in with this record Budget being introduced by the Government. Local authorities have been unable to procure overdrafts for their requirements. It is easy to see that the Deputies opposite are all very young or we would have had them saying that at one time our cheques were being dishonoured. Do you remember when they were saying that in this House? No sooner had we gone out of office than that was bandied around the country, particularly by the Minister for Local Government. I was succeeded by Deputy Smith and on the 18th June, 1956, at column 858. Volume 162, he was asked for particulars of cheques which were dishonoured by local authorities and he was unable to say that any one cheque was dishonoured. What a different story there is today. We have Wexford Corporation going to four insurance companies, seeking loans and being refused. I remember, when money was scarce in 1956, suggesting to local authorities that they should approach insurance companies. I said I felt certain insurance companies would accommodate them by giving them loans at reasonable interest rates. At least two companies gave them substantial loans and I was chastised in this House for not making the Local Loans Fund available and for sending the local authorities to the insurance companies. However, they got the money from the insurance companies at that time. Now, four insurance companies have refused Wexford Corporation.

It was worse in Donegal. Were there not seven there?

They would not touch us at all. I am glad Deputy O'Connor is here. One of the last things I did as Minister for Local Government was to sanction a bridge to Valentia in the Deputy's constituency.

An insurance company offered a loan to Kerry County Council this week without being asked for it.

I hope you will take it for Valentia Bridge.

No, we will use it for another purpose.

For housing?

Good. I am delighted that by setting the headline I did, I got you to go to the insurance companies. If you had taken my advice down through the years, the Local Loans Fund would not have been denuded of funds. However, I should like to know why the bridge to Valentia has not been built. It is a long time since I gave the green light for it.

In the meantime, what have the Government done with the money? Almost £1 million is being spent on this House of Parliament here and it is not finished yet. God only knows what has been spent on Templemore Barracks. They built a swimming pool in it that does not hold water—nobody can swim in it—but they built a handball alley that does hold water, and nobody can play in it. That is the kind of squandermania that goes on.

Last week there was a get-together in Magee University College in Derry. Ministers of State were present from here and from the Six Counties, or perhaps I should say, Northern Ireland. That is more popular now with the Taoiseach. In our time it was always the Six Counties. Various suggestions were made as to what could be done for the betterment of the economy of what I will describe as the north-west. As we all know, Lough Foyle is possibly one of the finest harbours in western Europe. It accommodated the entire fleets of NATO since the war and during the war it accommodated the Allied fleet. Just outside Derry city is one of the finest airports, from which international planes take off to all parts of the western hemisphere. One would imagine if one wanted to do something for the northwest, it would be to develop those two natural resources. But the present Minister for Local Government had a suggestion. He said: "No, they are too remote. We want to build a new pier at Rathmullen." This would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of £10 million. He also said that a new landing strip should be built in north Donegal. What you have in the Six Counties is not good enough for us and, besides, it is in Derry and not in Donegal. Have we despired of ever wiping out the Border and getting rid of the barriers?

You are not supposed to talk about the Border now. It is not cricket.

Now, the question has been put to us—and rightly so, I think—suppose you were over here, what would you do to improve matters? How would you save money? I have told you how we would cut out the squandermania on places like Templemore Barracks and Leinster House, for the time being anyway. We would take damned good care that if our troops went to Cyprus, we would not be afraid to accept the money for them, from whatever source it came.

The Labour Party were the only Party who said that.

We are saying it now. We are always glad to get £1 million owed to us. To the poorer sections of this community, £1 million would mean a lot. Another way in which you would save £250,000 is by holding the Presidential election and the local elections on the same date. I know I will be told it costs only £125,000 to hold the local elections. That is the cost to the local authorities. But what about the political Parties? They have to get the money. Do not forget it is from the taxpayers they get the money. They must take up their collections and the only people from whom they will get money are the citizens of this State. I reckon the minimum cost of the local elections will be £250,000. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if I had Deputy Breslin here to assist me, we would tell you that at a meeting of Donegal County Council yesterday, I had a motion recommending to the Government that they should save this £250,000 by holding the Presidential election and the local elections on the same date.

We are not going to have them at all this year.

The Party Whips were put on and Fianna Fáil voted against it to a man.

Even Deputy Breslin.

Even Deputy Breslin.

Deputy Corish should cease interrupting. He might put Deputy O'Donnell off his speech.

I apologise.

Do the Government ever think that instead of paying the British people to eat our butter, it might be better to pay the Irish people to eat it, as the inter-Party Government did? We subsidised butter, thus giving the poorer people an opportunity of procuring it at less than the retail price.

That was Danish butter.

We did not subsidise Danish butter.

We subsidised Irish butter. We brought Danish butter in only when we could not procure sufficient supplies of Irish butter.

It was the first time Danish butter was ever brought in here. We were paying the Danish farmer.

What were we doing with the Irish butter?

Mr. Gibbons

There was not any Irish butter.

There is the answer. I suppose I had better refer to something else. We went around Europe looking for money. We went to America, our greatest friend, where we were told by Deputy Briscoe and others there was an immense amount of goodwill for Ireland. We went over to this goodwill to look for £8 million. When they examined our economy and examined the bankers, they told us to "hump off". They did not give us a penny. We then approached the World Bank and got from them £7 million, which is exactly half our allotment with the World Bank. Of course, that was not sufficient. We went across to West Germany, to a country which has lost two World Wars in half a century, and borrowed from them— the Government tell us at 7¾ per cent but I believe when it is paid, it will be between nine per cent and ten per cent.

It will be 10½ per cent.

Did the Government ever think of offering 7¾ per cent to the Irish people? Do they not think they would have got the money here if they offered 7¾ per cent? Why must we pay more to the foreigners and pay the British to eat our butter when we could do the same thing for our own people?

Now we are back to the butter again.

I am putting the two together. I am comparing what you are doing for non-nationals with what you are doing for nationals and asking you could you not do the same thing for the nationals as you are doing for the non-nationals.

Are you against the development of the British market for Irish butter?

You fought a Civil War to try to break the British market.

Are you against it?

You have to pay the British to eat more butter; why not pay the Irish?

You are against it?

I always said the British market was there. Your slogan in 1932 was to sink every ship in the Irish Sea and to burn everything British but their coal.

Why did you not have Irish butter?

Because we were eating it.

We are eating more butter now.

We are eating Summer County now. Make no mistake about this: Fianna Fáil are breaking up, when you see a banner headline: "Fianna Fáil Deputy condemns crude effort of Minister".

Is this the Irish Catholic?

I do not see Deputy Carter here.

He will be here after half-past ten.

This is the Irish Catholic. What possessed the Deputy to read the Irish Catholic, anyway?

What possessed me to read it?

It is a good question.

It is a good question coming from a Fianna Fáil Deputy. I suppose he thinks I should read nothing but "Truth in the Noose" or "Pravda", the Irish Press.

I did not think the Deputy would have done so.

Is it a joke to read an Irish Catholic paper?

No, but that is the paper that advocated one time that people spoil their ballots at an election.

It must be a good while ago. It must be the ballots cast in the Vatican Council which they burned.

Go back to the 1930s.

To come to another matter, the Minister posed this question in the very beginning: "What went wrong with our Budget of 1965?" Deputy Burke did not tell us, but he told us the remedy. Fianna Fáil picked out only 13 speakers. Only 13 were let into the secret of what they should say, and Deputy Burke was one of them. Deputy Burke's solution for this was to this effect: "There is a lot of goodwill abroad for Ireland. We shall ask every man who has a bit of goodwill for our country to buy Prize Bonds at £5 apiece. Then we will pass the hat around and from every man, woman and child in this country, we shall take up 6d a week and the damage the Minister for Finance has done in the 1965 Budget will be remedied by this time next year." That was suggested by Deputy Burke. It is on the records of this House. We all know the background of Deputy Burke. It may have been his training.

Every tragedy has comic relief.

It may have been his training that has caused him to make that stupid suggestion. However, another senile delinquent, in the person of Deputy MacEntee, entered into the fray.

A member of the House should not be termed as a senile delinquent.

It was a former member of his Party, the former Deputy Dr. Browne, who christened him that.

The former Deputy Cogan.

Yes, Deputy Cogan, who was then a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

It is still out of order.

I certainly did not say it. I have always respected old age. However, Deputy MacEntee introduced 11 Budgets in this House and when he heard the question posed by the Minister for Finance: "What went wrong with my Budget?", he did not come into this House to tell him what went wrong with it. He rushed to the press. He wrote a letter, not to the Irish Press, in case it would not be published, but to the Irish Times, and he answered what went wrong with the Budget:

Outstanding among the chief culprits, I place the economic astrologers and soothsayers who deluded our people with fantasies of the affluence which awaited when they got to the end of the rainbow some years hence.

Do Deputies realise what soothsayers are? In my part of the country, they are the people who read cups or read hands. Deputy MacEntee says that the people who read the Minister's hand and told him all the prosperity which this country would achieve in 1965 were the people who misled him and that is what caused the damage. Who were these soothsayers? The only soothsayers I know whom the Minister consults are his economic experts. Deputy MacEntee has stated in black and white that it was the Minister's soothsayers who led him astray. Deputy MacEntee goes further:

Next in order of malign influences I rate those who were responsible for what has been euphemistically styled a National Wage Agreement.

It was the Taoiseach, Deputy MacEntee's Leader, who entered into the National Wage Agreement, and he rates him as the second culprit in answering the question posed by the Minister for Finance: "What went wrong with my Budget of 1965?" Deputy MacEntee goes on:

Repair your failure before the current debate on this year's budget concludes, so that the Minister, in his coming Finance Bill, may usher in, for at least one poor taxpayer, an earthly paradise according to your prescription.

That is the prayer of Deputy MacEntee. Therefore, between the soothsayers to whom Deputy MacEntee refers—the advisers of the Minister for Finance— and the gentleman who entered into the National Wage Agreement, namely, the Taoiseach, he answers the question posed by the Minister for Finance: "What went wrong with my Budget?" He said these were the people who led the Minister astray and, for goodness' sake, ensure it does not happen again, and let one poor man have some peace.

I hope that whatever constructive criticism I have offered will be accepted and not that of Deputy Burke, who may be another soothsayer of the Minister, for all I know. Undoubtedly the remedy suggested by Deputy Burke will come to be known as "Paddy's Pence".

It is rather difficult to avoid the temptation to follow Deputy O'Donnell away back to the beginning of the 1930s. The members of his Party are very fond of misrepresenting the position at that time. I only want to say I do not think there is anybody outside the Fine Gael Party—and even they in diminishing numbers—who does not fully realise why the steps taken by the Fianna Fáil Government from 1932 to 1939 were necessary. We succeeded in having the ports handed over to this country and making the Twenty-Six Counties a sovereign State and eventually keeping the country neutral during the last Great War. When history is written and when we are celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the 1930s, we shall be able to see that period in proper perspective and realise that it may have been the most glorious fight the Irish people, and especially the Irish farmers, ever made. At that time they were given plenty of opportunities, in a democratic fashion, to vote against the people who were supposed to be imposing all these penalties on them. To their credit let it be said that every time they gave Fianna Fáil the green light to continue the fight which is known as the Economic War and to do so in spite of the opposition of some of our own people who took the enemy's side in that war. It is not my desire to open old sores but when one hears that kind of thing being trotted out by a Front Bench member of the Fine Gael Party, it is a bit thick.

The only other thing I want to say in connection with Deputy O'Donnell's speech is in relation to the amount of butter being subsidised in Ireland in the 1930s, the amount of subsidised butter now being sent across the water and the amount of butter we have ourselves. It was rather interesting for me to note in the past few days, the report that the American authorities are forbidding the use of butter for their army or air force in order to save money. I was wondering what the reaction of the Opposition would be if this country, which is supposed to be "bust", ever decided to prevent Irish families from having butter for their meals.

This debate has been going on now for three weeks. I have had a fair share of experience of Budgets and this follows the pattern of all its predecessors. Budgets must impose taxation. I have never known a Budget that did not impose taxation. Taxation is never popular and, therefore, Budgets are never popular. It is as simple as that. What has been said against this Budget has all been said before: the country is burst; taxation has reached its limit, and so on; we cannot have any more taxation because of the law of diminishing returns. Perhaps the most popular of all is the statement that the people have been deluded and misled by Fianna Fáil and, if they had their way, they would change the Government.

Hear, hear.

I have been hearing that for a great many years now. The reality—it seems to have escaped Opposition speakers—is that in the past 34 or 35 years the people have had many opportunities of changing the Government. They did change the Government on two occasions and the results were so disastrous that, no matter what happens now——

The Deputy should not proceed to fight so many elections.

I apologise.

He is making a great case for the Opposition.

Am I? I presume the Deputy does not infer that that is why the Acting Chairman stopped me from continuing. Of course, the country is not bankrupt. The fact is that more money is being spent in this Budget on education, industry, housing and agriculture than was ever spent before. The reason taxation can now be increased on commodities which would not bear an increase seven or eight years ago is higher standard of living. Because more money is in circulation now, commodities can stand increased taxation.

I am sure Cork County Council will be glad to hear that. What did the Taoiseach say in 1956?

The Deputy does not move with the times. Times have changed since 1956—I will not say, as I could so tritely, due to the able government of Fianna Fáil. There was a typical comment made in this debate by my friend and colleague, Deputy Barrett. He is a man who preaches woe and disaster and his Budget speech on this occasion ran true to type. He regretted that the Government had given money for the completion of the Cork Opera House. He said that if the Government had that money now, they could put it into housing. I want to kill this before the Deputy develops a blind spot. The amount of money in question was £35,000. It was taken from a special fund. It could not be used for anything else. Legislation had to be passed. If it were used for housing, Cork would get 1/26th of the total. That would not have built three houses. It is rather remarkable to hear a Deputy from Cork city talking as Deputy Barrett did when one remembers that the Opera House is doing better than the most confident hoped for.

There are a good many sixpences in £35,000. Deputy Burke would not fit them all in his tin can.

The mentality of Deputy Barrett is the mentality of the Fine Gael Party. He thought an airfield would be sufficient for Cork rather than an airport. Verolme Dockyard is not there because of any effort on Deputy Barrett's part. I want to keep the record straight. I want to let Deputy Barrett know this money could not have been used to house the people of Cork. It is easier, of course, to see ills rather than have the cure for them. We are living in an age of sweepstakes and prize bonds and it seems to me too many people want more for doing less. That is something we shall have to face up to; there will have to be a readjustment. I wonder is it really a case of worker versus employer. I do not think we should blame any one particular section. All sections are to blame when it comes to industrial relations. There is a wrong approach. I disagree entirely with the five-day week. If there is one thing the country needs, it is more manpower hours of production. I am second to none in my desire that conditions for the working man should improve.

There is light from about 6 a.m. now until 7 p.m. I am quite sure the workers would be able to manage that.

I am against cutting off hours of work.

Did the Deputy ever work for hire?

I am not talking about hire; I am talking about hours of work. Believe me, I work as many hours as most people.

For longer hours. The lowest paid should get the greatest increase. The same increase should not be given to all workers. Those in the higher income group should be content with less. My point is that at this juncture the country wants all the manpower hours of production it can get.

Why does the Deputy not advise the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance——

He is doing that.

——to look after the lower income groups employed by the Government?

I trust the Minister will be able to do something in time about altering the whole system so that social welfare recipients, for instance, will not have to wait for months after the Budget before they get their increase while those who are much better able to bear the burden get retrospective increases for 12 months and two years. There is something wrong with a system which allows that.

It may not be easy for the Minister to find a solution to it but we should help him to do it. Our main concern should be the people who are worst off in our society, the social welfare recipients. It might be a good thing if in future nobody was given a retrospective increase, or indeed any increase, until it is first budgeted for.

Does that apply also to profits?

I do not mind a bit. I am sorry I have not got a solution to the problem. If I had I would have told the Minister long ago. I hope the Minister will be able to find a solution. I welcome a Budget which is realistic and necessary. We have been told the Fianna Fáil Deputies have been silent. Deputies should realise that silence is consent.

To the criticisms?

We criticise when we feel it is necessary. As I have said, this Budget is necessary. It will serve the dual purpose of balancing our economy and bringing home to the people that any money spent on better services, in grants and so on, has to be paid for by themselves and by nobody else.

I do not know whether I often find myself in agreement with Deputy Healy; I do not know if I have ever spoken immediately after him but I agree with certain things he says and disagree with others. He said the country is not bankrupt and I agree with him. The country is not bankrupt, but if it had much more of this type of Government, of this type of budgeting, it might well become bankrupt. It is only the inherent strength of the country that will pull us out of the morass in which we have been unnecessarily placed.

If I spoke for half an hour or an hour, I could not convey more than that. I might emphasise it and clarify it, but the tragedy, the difficulty about the situation in which we find ourselves, is that this has come about through the actions of the Government —through various actions taken, perhaps, sometimes with the best of motives but always working out very badly from the national viewpoint. I disagree with Deputy Healy and those of his Party — this is very much the Party line — that this is a necessary Budget. Our contention in Fine Gael is that this is not a necessary Budget, but as a Budget, it is necessary for us, very reluctantly, to put up with it. At the same time, it is necessary for us to point out that the tragic need for this Budget would not have been there if the Government had listened to their financial advisers and if they had followed what they had said in the last couple of years, particularly last year before the general election.

I do not wish to go over the old, weary line of argument to any great extent on the question of why we have come to this position, but it is necessary to say, for the umpteenth time, that the financial situation in which we find ourselves has arisen because the Government took various actions a couple of years ago which were bound to lead to this situation. Those actions were pointed out to them at the time —the 2½ per cent turnover tax and the sudden overwhelming increase in wages which came about when the Taoiseach gave the green light of encouragement to employers all over the country. I am not against wage increases. We in Fine Gael consider them necessary but when they come at a time like the period to which I have been referring, when they are not backed up by an increase in production, they bring about a catastrophic rise in the general level of the cost of living.

I do not wish to go over that argument again and to say the things we have said repeatedly and which have been pointed out by various financial advisers and economists. Largely that is why this disastrous Budget was necessary. It started off a spiral of inflation and we are now suffering from the tragic results. Last year we had a deficit of £8 million and the Government have not given us a clear answer as to why or how that deficit came about. As Deputy John A. Costello asked earlier today, why did not the financial advisers point that out to the Government and if they did why did the Government not take heed? Why was it necessary to bring this Budget before us earlier in the year than usual? Why were these very hard steps taken to alleviate the position? Why was so much money taken in extra taxation that we shall again find ourselves faced with rising costs and, inevitably, rising prices?

These are questions that have not been answered by the Government. I am not sure how clearly they have been put to them. The Government have drawn far larger sums of money than usual from the banks as anybody acquainted with the financial machinery knows. That is why the whole country is suffering from a credit squeeze. The banks have not got the money available to lend to the Government and at the same time to private individuals and to local authorities throughout the country to carry on what is ordinary day to day business. All sorts of things have been jolted out of their usual smooth running by this incursion by the Government into the field of finance, desperately looking for money which should not have been necessary.

It is not the function of the Opposition to say to the Government where money could have been saved. It is the business of the Government to find that out. Every Government have in front of them figures that we on this side of the House have not got. Neither have we got the advice of the financial advisers to the Government but we can say that the Government have spent far too much and that it is this that has put the country in the position we now find it. As I said a few moments ago, I wish not only to stress that this Budget is, in itself, something which is unnecessarily harsh but we have the peculiar position that the Government, desperate for money, have moved in on top of the building industry, on top of the demands of all sorts of other associations, all sorts of other groups and trades generally, and taken the money those people were in the hope of getting from the banks. We have the peculiar position that the actual money which will have to be paid into the revenue in taxation by private individuals will have to be borrowed from banks which are already strained to their utmost by the unwonted demands of the Government on them.

In spite of what I am going to say, I do not think the country is bankrupt. There is a fair chance that, if the Government do not do anything foolish, we may pull ourselves out of the more serious aspects of this financial situation towards the end of this year but it will be the inherent strength of the economy and what I might call the monumental commonsense of our people which will make that recovery possible.

Income tax has gone up 8d in the £ and it is a very great burden on individuals and on trade and industry in general. Outsiders do not seem to realise the terrible burden of taxation which industry and individuals carry in this country. One may see increases in the all-over profits of industries, just as one sees increases in people's wages and salaries, but, on account of the tremendous rise in the cost of living— or, if you like to put it, the fall in the value of money—the pound we know now is very different from the pound we knew even ten years ago.

In connection with taxation it has been mentioned that there should be greater reliefs for individuals in the case of illness. I think the Minister should examine those demands and proposals very carefully from the point of view of providing some form of State help in the case of illness for people who pay income tax, namely, the very hard-hit middle classes. It is a way of providing cheaper hospitalisation, and cheaper medical services for those people.

In connection with death duties— which I do not think have been affected on this occasion—there has been a considerable body of feeling in this country that if these duties were decreased, in the long run and in the comparatively short run, we would benefit by an influx of money into this country.

In this Budget motor taxation has gone up by 25 per cent. That is a very big burden on the commercial community and on private individuals. Already motor taxation is very high, both with regard to the actual tax one pays on the vehicle and in the price of petrol. Petrol, as we know, is up, but motor taxation is up by 25 per cent. I noticed a motor car which passed us in the street a few days ago. It had come down from the North of Ireland and was parked on the side of the kerb. I looked at the taxation figure on the disc and it was £17 10. 0. It was a magnificent car—I will not mention the make—but the tax was £17 10. 0. The tax on a similar car in this part of Ireland would be £40, before this Budget was introduced. That will give you an idea of the extra burden the motor industry is carrying in this country. That burden is not just one borne by people who are using their cars for pleasure; it is a burden which is borne by industry and the distributing trades generally.

We have a great deal of labour troubles. This is not just the occasion to go into that, but they have been mentioned before and they contribute very much to the difficulties we have at the present moment because they arise from the Government's inability to grasp the financial situation and their inability to deal with it properly. In that connection I hope we will not see more trouble in the Post Office. It is looming up now and I hope the Government will be able to deal with it effectively on behalf of the citizens.

Another of the increases we saw in the Budget, and have to put up with, is the increase in the price of beer. There is also an increase in the price of whiskey. I do not know just how far these industries can carry that burden without suffering a decrease but one of the unfortunate effects of the increase we read about in the papers is the possibility that some of the brewers might not find it economic to carry on in this country. That would be a very serious matter for industry in Dundalk, Dublin and many other cities of Ireland, and that industry gives very big employment and very well-paid employment in the State.

There is something the new Trade Agreement has made possible, which has not been a factor in Budgets or in the governmental life of this country for very many years, and it is that the duties on various goods will gradually decrease. We are entering into what will virtually be a free trade area with this country. If certain types of industry are taxed unduly heavily from the point of view of excise, income tax, surtax or any of the various complicated forms of taxation and allowances under our tax code, and if these differ very much from the taxation across the water, then industry here may fly across the water, too, and we may be back to the position in which we were before industries were built up in this country. That is something which can happen only where there is a free trade area and it is something the Government must watch. They must watch and be careful that, in their efforts to raise more money from the people they do not send away industries which already exist here.

I need not touch on the very big factor that this high rate of taxation is something which will hinder industries coming to this country. The Government, through the Department of Industry and Commerce, could very easily get at those figures, if they wish. They must have information on them. I imagine they would be very chary about publishing them. However, what will be patently obvious to us all will be the closing down of any industries here resulting from high taxation. The matter has a real bearing on what the Government will be able to do in the way of spending money. In other words, apart from anything that Irish men and women may object to in paying high taxation, there are industries which may disappear like snow off the ditch, if and when the taxation rises to a point at which they consider it uneconomic to continue. We should not like to see that situation arise from a tax point of view, above all, from the point of view of the men and women who work in these industries. We have been given a red light in the case of the great brewery industry in this country. I hope that will teach the Government sanity, even if they do not learn it in other ways.

I shall close this speech by reiterating what I said at the beginning. I do not consider the country bankrupt but I consider that the Government have been very foolish and very wrong in the level of expenditure they rose to in the past 12 months. They have brought the country to its knees, financially. They must call a halt to this very high level of expenditure or they may bankrupt the country.

It was interesting to hear Deputy Dockrell, a Front Bench Member of the Opposition, say that the country is not bankrupt, just as the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Cosgrave, indicated that the economy is basically sound. However, the former Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Dillon, now a backbencher, said that the country is "bust". It is indeed interesting to compare the views expressed from the front and back benches of the Fine Gael Party.

We are not a regimented Party.

That is obvious.

That is why they sacked him.

The debate has centred on the financial policy of the Government and their efforts to find money for essential services. Fianna Fáil believe in the future. If we are to believe at all, we must believe in the future. The Budget has been described as a bad Budget. The last Budget was described as a good Budget. We have heard Budgets described as popular or unpopular. A good Budget can be unpopular from the point of view of the ordinary citizen or from the point of view of the politician. This is a good Budget, although it may be unpopular because of certain taxes which have been imposed. It is the duty of any Government to provide services and to maintain them at whatever level is necessary and desirable.

Budget time is a period of national stocktaking, a time when the Government must examine all problems in relation to State administration and the economic changes that are occurring in this ever-changing world in which we live. An Opposition speaker said that if we closed the door and forgot about the outside world, we should be all right in a short time, but the fact is that no country now has a limit. The world is contracting by virtue of the speed of communications and it is an undoubted fact that what happens in any part of the world can affect our economy to some degree at some stage. Any one of these problems necessitates some very hard thinking and demands an estimation of our resources and our prospects for the future. If the Government are to be condemned for estimating our future resources and prospects, then we stand convicted and are guilty of examining the situation in relation to the future.

Many measures are introduced here to pave the way for future development in the fields of housing, social welfare and so on. However, legislation alone will not suffice. Our survival and economic advance depends largely on how we tackle the problems which face us today. Our future depends not on how we tackled our problems last year or the year before last but on how we tackle them today. The arguments valid in 1965 or 1964 are not valid in 1966. The farther we go back, the greater the lesson we learn in relation to the arguments that are valid at any particular period.

The Opposition Parties are prepared not to raise additional taxation but wish for the best. A wishbone is no substitute for a backbone. This Budget is the backbone of the nation which will provide the services which are necessary. The road before us is long and difficult. There are obstacles which are unforeseen today that will appear tomorrow, and there are obstacles which have arisen today that were unforeseen yesterday. For that reason it is a long one. In the months ahead, with a realistic approach, we are confident that the people will demonstrate the qualities that are needed, the qualities of effort, of restraint, of unselfishness and a willingness to surrender their selfish sectional interests to the greater national and social interests. We are interested in the wider field of the national and social interests. We are not interested in the sectional field.

The people have approved this Budget. There is no doubt about that. There is no large-scale upheaval. There may be sectional upheaval because the Budget affects one section to a greater degree than another. Nevertheless it is accepted, in general terms, in a realistic fashion, because the people themselves understand the economic situation not only here but throughout the world. They seem to be more aware of the situation than many elected representatives we have heard in the course of this debate.

The steps taken by the Government in this Budget are necessary to bring about economic stability. All of us know what this means. It means a fuller recognition in every section of industry of where our national duty lies, and where our social advantage lies, in matters in relation to prices and incomes. Let us not underestimate what has been achieved already. Much has been said about ineffective industrial relations to which I shall refer later. Nevertheless, in this field of activity we do not see any banner headlines about the voluntary adjustment of industrial settlements, reflecting patience and statesmanship on the part of leaders on both sides, in industry and in the trade unions. In their settlements they conform to the requirements of the national economic situation. This does not receive banner headlines. Sometimes the headlines are distorted. We applaud the people who make every effort in the interests of the nation, of their own industries, and of the workers they represent.

The real key to our economic success lies on the more positive side, on an expansion of productivity through industry and through most other sectors of the national life. This has been expressed on many occasions by many speakers on all sides of the House during this debate. It is through increased productivity that we can achieve the higher incomes we seek, that manufacturers can absorb wages and salaries without increasing prices, if it is possible to suggest to a manufacturer that he should not increase his prices, so that we can afford the expanding social programme which clamours for priority, and not in the distortions of the past years between private affluence and lagging social standards.

Notwithstanding what has already been done, we are conscious that social standards need to be improved. They will be improved only by a greater national effort. We are aware of the social benefits and other matters which have come before the House from time to time, and are applauded by all Parties, and by all individuals, because they represent social advances. We must improve productivity, and increase the quantity of our goods as well as the quality—and quality should be the key-note in every sector of life. We must make further improvements in our exports in order to meet the growing demand for more satisfactory services, and to reduce the growing dependence on imports to meet our own requirements of manufactured goods.

We must get rid of the idea that national effort towards production is a matter for management only. This would seem to reflect the views of some people: that management only are responsible or should be responsible for this greater productivity effort. It is the role of the Government and the trade unions to ensure that nothing is left undone by way of aids and services in order to ensure that this end will be achieved. When each section has played its part, then it can rightly insist on a fair share of the dividends from higher production. I am quite sure that while the Government have produced the necessary aids, and while the trade union movement are producing the necessary assistance, there are some manufacturers, employers, industrialists—whatever you like to call them—who are not meeting their requirements today.

Positive thinking and deliberate action are necessary if we are to prevent the disaster of the jungle law in the field of industrial relations. Surely at this late stage it should be possible to find some element of common-sense that will bring about a solution and avoid a head-on collision between labour and management. We have now reached the stage where any flimsy excuse can be put forward in support of irresponsible action. The workers are blackmailed by threats of voluntary liquidation and shut doors. On the other hand, we may have wild-cat strikes. We must not allow the situation to affect the economic position, and we must not allow the economic position to decay as a result of ineffective industrial relations. Any action by any person in this House or outside it, and particularly in the trade union movement, that will bring about a lasting solution of this problem, and that will bring about lasting industrial peace, will meet with the approval not only of the Government and this House, but of the nation as a whole.

We are entering a free trade area in three or four months' time. If free trade has taught us nothing else it has taught us that a nation cannot prosper on the decay of another nation. It is necessary and desirable that we do not attach ourselves to a dying nation or a nation with a dying economy, and it is necessary that we should be in a position to meet the challenges and demands that will come forward. We are entering this free trade area in three or four months' time, but one would think that the industrialists together with the representatives of labour, in some cases, had no idea that this situation was about to develop. This is a period in which we should be planning for the future, when we should be working out schemes to capture the markets that will become available. When we are entering a free trade area and it is necessary that we should have complete industrial peace, what do we face? A period of indecision and the aftermath of indecision if strikes are necessary for the workers to get their requirements.

Three per cent.

I will not argue about the amount. I, too, have my views about three per cent.

I was wondering.

I did not say a word about three per cent; I did not mention any percentage. That will come at a later stage. As far as the amount required, this refers to an all round amount. A millionaire was once asked: "At what stage will this apply? At what stage is a man satisfied? You have plenty of money and at what stage are you satisfied?" He said: "Just when I have a little more". The same thing applies to everything. We want that little more in industrial effort and we want a little more wages in order to achieve what is necessary and desirable. The export market is wide open and that is where, from the period of entry into the free trade area, we should present this new front by a more intensive campaign for the acceptance of our goods, by better presentation and packaging in order to ensure that our goods at first glance and at first impression will make a lasting impression that our goods are of a superior quality or that they are equally as good as others.

It is necessary that we should get together, whatever the cost may be, to ensure that we have this harmony which is so desirable and necessary between workers and management in the very full period that lies ahead. Many people have forgotten, that as distinct from the export market, we have home consumption. There are people producing for home consumption. We must recognise that a very important challenge to people who produce for home consumption is the inflow of foreign goods. This situation may be hampered by ineffective industrial relations. I do not feel, as many do, that the blame lies with the worker. The worker is due something. The amount he gets has to be debated and I am quite sure, when the time comes that he will get what is adequate and what is necessary in relation to the effort he has made in order to increase the Gross National Product to the extent it has now reached. This period, however, will test the capacity of the Federated Union of Employers and the trade union movement to the fullest. As a trade unionist, I hope, and I make no apology for saying this, the worker is treated justly and adequately as he has been on many occasions in the past.

That is a little more than the three per cent which the Minister for Finance and other leading spokesmen of the Fianna Fáil Party say.

Workers do not want strikes. Sometimes they are forced into strikes. Nevertheless, there are cases when the organisation representing the workers do not measure up to their responsibility, and as a result, strikes take place. On the other hand, as I have indicated, there is a tendency in recent times, especially by some unscrupulous employers, to indicate that they will go out of production in order to induce workers to step down. If any appeal should go from this House, during the course of this discussion, it should be an appeal for a new effort to reach agreement between all. If it is not reached today, it must be reached tomorrow, and tomorrow may be too late. We may lose our vital connections and we may lose our markets. It is in the interests of all that the jobs of workers are not threatened and that industry as a whole is not threatened. If industry is threatened, we will not have the social benefits which are so desirable, and which are so often sought after, by all sections of the community. We want a lasting peace based on realistic guidelines.

I know there are certain disruptionists operating at the moment in an effort to jeopardise the economy of this country. There are a number of disruptionists who have participated in a number of meetings and a number of strikes. I know of individuals who have participated in no less than three disputes in order to focus attention on one factor or another. Those are known, not alone to me but to industrialists and trade union organisations. The sooner we root those out of the country, the better it will be for all.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but we are discussing the Budget.

The Government have accepted their responsibility. Responsibility is the price of progress. No progress can be made without a price, whatever the price is, whether high or low. We must pay that price, whatever it is. During the debate, all Deputies should be fully aware of the position in relation to the services on which money is about to be spent. I believe that never before in the history of this House have Deputies had so much detail and so many facts at their disposal. They have never before had such a comprehensive picture in the booklets and the material supplied to them by the Government for the enlightenment of public representatives.

What are we told? Deputy Harte and other speakers tell us they did not read them. That has shown itself up in this debate. Quite a number of Deputies have shown that they have not read the booklets and information supplied to them. They are not aware of the position. If they were, and if they really believed in what they said previously, they would have gone into the other Lobby. They will not get an opportunity of going into that Lobby for some time to come.

Let us examine the position in relation to the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, which has been mentioned in relation to this debate. I might instance the speech made by Deputy Clinton as typical of the statements which have been made. On 22nd March at column 2001, Deputy Clinton said:

Incidentally, during the election campaign, and prior to it, we heard much about the First and Second Programme for Economic Expansion. Now, we hear very little about them because every forecast in the Second Programme has gone wrong.

He said that every forecast in the Second Programme has gone wrong. The little blue book, Capital Budget, 1966, which was sent round to Deputies states on page 16 under the heading “Comparison with Second Programme 1966-67 Projections”:

The total allocations for the public capital programme in the coming year exceeds the Second Programme projections by £3.55 million. The total for building and construction, at £34.4 million, is the same as the Second Programme projection but allows for an increase of £3.23 million in outlay on housing and of £0.43 million in outlay on schools over the respective Second Programme projections.

Now it is quite clear there are some projections which have been exceeded and there may be some which have not been reached. Further, on page 18 it states:

Expenditure on local authority housing in 1966-67 is provisionally estimated at £11 million, an increase of £0.89 million on the 1965-66 figure and £2.97 million more than the Second Programme estimate.

This additional money, which the Opposition failed to find—they failed to support the necessary measures to find it—is necessary so that we can do the things which are very desirable and which the Government are concerned should be done. We see that the projected expenditure, according to this booklet, page 18, on grants and loans for the construction or improvement of private houses totals £10.22 million in 1966-67 as against £9.27 million in the current year. That again indicates an increase and it must be accepted that the Opposition Parties are not in favour of these loans and grants for housing. Deputy O'Connell questioned the operation of the National Building Agency in relation to the Second Programme but on page 18 of this booklet we find:

The programme of the National Building Agency Limited envisages the expenditure of £0.5 million in 1966-67 on the provision of houses to meet needs arising from industrial development, compared with £0.40 million for 1965-66. The Agency's programme also provides for the construction of houses for industrial workers....

There again the Opposition Parties have failed to indicate support for this provision.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Before I was interrupted by the bell, I was pointing out that £0.5 million expenditure is provided for in 1966-67 by the National Building Agency compared with £0.40 million for 1965-66. We know it is necessary to build houses in areas of industrial development and the failure of the Opposition to support measures making money available for this purpose indicates that they are against the provision of houses in this case. They are also against the provision of houses for industrial workers.

Let us hear about local authority housing.

I shall deal with that in a moment. In the booklet, Capital Budget 1966, on page 19 the number of new schools to be provided is said to be in excess of the Government's target of 100 and may reach 115. The number of major improvement schemes carried out is also expected to be well in excess of the target of 50. Again, as in regard to all the other items I have mentioned, we are exceeding our targets. Thirty new vocational schools and 22 extensions were completed during 1965-66. The amount provided for the construction of new vocational schools and the extension and improvement of existing schools in 1966-67 is £2 million. Again it can only be assumed that the Opposition, by their failure to support taxes to meet these requirements for the expansion of the educational services, are not in favour of this development. Rapid progress has been achieved in the erection of three comprehensive schools and Government expenditure on these projects in 1965-66 will amount to £0.16 million. A provision of £0.44 million for the continuation of the work of the three schools is being made in 1966-67.

Here, again, there is a substantial increase in the accommodation made available and the Opposition Parties' failure to give support can only be interpreted as meaning they are not in favour of these comprehensive schools.

Expenditure in 1965-66 on schemes to provide new voluntary hospital accommodation, new accommodation for handicapped persons and works of improvement and extension of local authority hospitals is estimated at £2.4 million. This is in line with the Second Programme. In order to find that money, it was necessary——

To go to Germany.

——to come here and present a Budget involving additional taxation, which again the Opposition Parties failed to support. Among other important schemes in progress will be schemes of improvement at mental hospitals and extensions of the accommodation for the mentally handicapped. The Opposition's lack of support for the taxation to meet this cost indicates that they are not very concerned about the mentally handicapped or the mental hospitals.

On page 21 of the booklet, we see that £0.6 million will be spent in 1966-67 on constructional works at airports —that is a dirty word—compared with £0.5 million in 1965-66. I can well understand Opposition Parties not supporting Budget provision for the development of airports. That is in keeping with their policy in the past.

Capital expenditure in 1965-66 on factory construction and the provision of housing and community services by the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Ltd. is estimated at £0.85 million. In addition, the company received £0.29 million towards grants to industries for machinery and the training of workers and £0.03 million in respect of new houses for workers. An allocation of £0.85 million is being made for 1966-67, mainly to cover the construction of additional factory bays. Again the additional money had to be found and we are happy to find this money and make it possible for this industrial estate to develop. Quite a number of Fine Gael and Labour Party members visited this estate at Shannon in the past 12 months and indicated that they had a very good time and got a very good dinner, but that seems to be the end of the line; they are not prepared to find money for additional employment. Employment has risen to 3,162 persons compared with 2,669 in 1964. We are glad to be responsible for this situation and are prepared to make money available for the development of this area.

In all cases it can be clearly seen that far from lagging behind and far from what Deputy Clinton said, while it may be true that some projects are lagging behind, the bulk of them are up to predictions.

The heading "Tourism" on page 21 of this booklet covers grants towards capital expenditure on the development of tourist resorts and holiday accommodation. Total expenditure in 1965-66 is expected to amount to £0.61 million compared with the Second Programme projection of £0.56 million. Again, we are ahead of the projection. Our anxiety to ensure that national programmes move faster is unpalatable to the Opposition but we accept full responsibility. In order to assist in meeting the increasing demand for holiday accommodation, the amount provided in 1966-67 for the development of such accommodation is £0.5 million, or almost twice the estimated expenditure in 1965-66. The Second Programme projection was £0.2 million. The provision being made for resort development, £0.26 million is the same as the Second Programme projection.

It is quite obvious that the Opposition did not read the booklets given out, particularly this booklet. If they have not got it, they can get a copy from the Stationery Office for 2s. 6d. I am quite sure there still are plenty available. It was suggested by a Deputy that Bord na Móna could have got a little more but where was the money to come from? He did not support any of the provisions for any of these measures; neither did the Fine Gael Party. We are not supposed apparently to develop our tourist trade, industrial estates, hospitals, airports, housing.

Air companies are dealt with at page 26 of the Capital Budget, where it is stated:

The expenditure of £6.66 million in 1965-66 is mainly in respect of completion of payment for a second Boeing 320 aircraft for the transatlantic service delivered in April, 1965, and part-payment for a third Boeing 320 aircraft—also for the transatlantic service—due for delivery in May, 1966; completion of payment for the first two BAC One-Eleven aircraft delivered in May and June 1965; and part of the cost of construction of a new central office block and an additional jet hangar at Dublin Airport on which work is proceeding.

The allocation of £5.01 million for 1966/67 will cover completion of payment for the third Boeing aircraft mentioned above; part-payment for a fourth Boeing 320 aircraft due for delivery in 1967; completion of payment for Viscounts purchased from KLM; part-payment for two Boeing 737 aircraft for Aer Lingus for delivery in 1968 and 1969; and further expenditure on the new central office block. The increase of £0.73 million over the Second Programme provision of £4.28 million is due to the fact that the expansion of traffic on the transatlantic service has necessitated the placing of the order for the fourth Boeing 320 aircraft a year earlier than was expected when the Second Programme projections were being made.

I can well understand why the Opposition did not vote in support of money being made available for the development of the air companies and if by any fluke they get back into government, they will have great sport selling these aircraft. They will need more than one auctioneer in the Cabinet, they will want a couple if they sell these aircraft. Had we not got back into power, the jet aircraft would have been scrapped, as was projected by a former Minister of the inter-Party Government. I am quite sure that in the years to come he, too, may become converted to the fact that transatlantic services and aircraft are no longer dirty words.

In order to convince him further, if that is necessary, I shall quote later on, if I have time, from another little book we got—the Progress Report for 1965 on the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. Air companies are dealt with on page 82 of that Report.

I return now to the Capital Budget, to deal with industrial grants. It is stated at page 27:

For 1966-67 £4 million is being provided for grant payments by An Foras Tionscal. This is the same as expenditure expected in 1965-66. Legislation is being prepared to extend the scheme of adaptation and re-equipment grants to 31 December, 1967. The total of grants approved to 31 December, 1965, was £32.6 million, representing an overall capital investment of £120 million and an employment content, when full production is reached, of about 37,800 workers.

Of course, there again, money had to be provided and the Opposition Deputies, Labour and Fine Gael, did not support the Budget in order that money would be available to meet these grants. It can only be assumed that it was for the same reason as in the case of hospitals, schools and air companies.

Under the heading, Industrial Credit Company, it is stated in the Capital Budget:

The provision of £4 million for the Industrial Credit Company Ltd., represents a decrease of £0.7 million on the Company's estimated expenditure in the current financial year. It is, however, £0.5 million more than the Second Programme provision.

We hear a great deal about the failure to meet the projections of the Second Programme. Maybe we should check to see whether this booklet was sent to members of the Opposition or only to members on the Government side of the House. It is difficult to see how people could be so stupid as to make such statements as I have already referred to which are reported in almost every volume of the Dáil Debates that I have read here today. Some projections have not been reached. They are only projections. There is no criticism that can be levelled if projections are not reached but, if criticism is expressed, then there must be applause for those cases where the projections have been exceeded.

It might be worthwhile to go into some detail in regard to the Estimates for Public Services. Last year we spoke here about the provision of additional social welfare payments. The Fine Gael Party claimed that they were the people who were responsible for forcing us into action. The Labour Party said it was their policy. Both Labour and Fine Gael applauded the Government action and indicated their support, some of them half-heartedly. They supported the Budget provisions of last year. But, it was not in the Budget provisions of that year that money was made available for these increases. They are provided this year. Therefore, it must be assumed that Fine Gael and the Labour Party are against the increases in the old age and other non-contributory pensions covered in this Budget and the additional children's allowances and unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions, as they did not vote for any provisions that would make money available for these social services that they talked so much about last year.

The Estimate for Health is up by £1,977,931. There are so many factors involved that it would take me too long to deal with all of them but there is one that I should like to mention, namely, the supplementary grants to ensure that the amount of approved net health expenditure falling on local rates in respect of the year 1966-67 will not exceed the amount in respect of the year 1965-66—£310,000. I am glad to be able to support a Budget that makes money available for an easement of the rates. It is a start in the right direction. Many Deputies who spoke in the debate on the White Paper indicated that this is desirable but, when the chips were down, they were not prepared to support the provisions which would make the necessary money available.

The explanatory note on Subhead G —Grants to Health Authorities—of the Health Estimate gives details of expenditure by health authorities in respect of the year 1966-67 under the heading "Hospital Services: general hospitals including maternity hospitals and special hospitals; tuberculosis hospitals; mental hospitals, hospitals and homes for chronic sick, mentally handicapped, etc.—and under the heading, "Services Other Than Hospital Services—general medical services; mother and child service (including maternity cash grants), infectious diseases services and maintenance of persons suffering from infectious diseases; allowances to disabled persons and rehabilitation services and "Other Services", for example, dental, ophthalmic and other specialist services.

We are glad to be able to make more money available for these services. It is only by the provisions in the Budget that this is possible. Again it must be assumed that in the field of health as in the field of social welfare, the Opposition pay only lip service to the cause of the unfortunate persons for whom the benefits are designed.

There is an increased provision in the Estimates in respect of Córas Tráchtála. Again, no effort was made by the Opposition to support the Budget in order that money would be available for increased provision for Córas Tráchtála, towards administration and general expenses, including export promotion. Export promotion, apparently, does not mean a thing. The Opposition want to see the country sinking. They are going a good way about it, if they do. While we are here, we will not allow it to sink.

There is an increased grant in the Estimate for Industry and Commerce in respect of An Cheard Chomhairle —Apprenticeship Board—from the 1965-66 provision of £55,000 to £70,000. The Labour Party did not support the provisions making money available for that.

There are many other items I could mention. The net increase in the provision for secondary education is £1,138,700. Maybe scholarships and prizes do not matter. We hear a lot about these at local authority meetings. Perhaps building grants for secondary schools do not matter. There is £115,000 provided for those. I have already dealt with comprehensive schools. It must be taken that when you are not prepared to support these provisions, you must be against them. There is an increase also in regard to local government. Perhaps you object to the increases in salaries. You were not prepared to support the provisions in regard to local authority houses for which there is an addition. Maybe you are not very concerned about local authority houses. There is also an additional provision for water supply and sewerage schemes. Perhaps they do not matter. Your action in the House must indicate that you are in no way in favour of these at present and neither are you in favour of all the other services I have mentioned, grants in respect of derelict sites, dangerous places and so on. We hear a lot about quarries and other dangerous places from time to time. It gives me great pleasure as a member of this Party to support any provision for better social and health services.

Let us see now what the situation is in regard to dishonesty in public life. Every day we have dozens of questions on the Order Paper asking for money to be made available for various things, but we must find the money somewhere. Questions are put down by Deputies asking why this is not being done or why this is not being paid. How are we to provide the services if we have not got the money? On this occasion you had an opportunity to vote for the provision of all these services but you failed in your responsibility to your Parties and your country.

Your Party would not vote for any tax provision in 1956.

The Budget provides for additional expenditure in regard to social welfare benefits.

He was not here then——

I am here now.

But your Party was here.

He gets the money in Germany or else with the tin can in New York.

During the last election, Deputy Dillon went around stating that it was time for a change. After the election, they paraded him in here like a prize bull. They led him into the House and what happened? The House rejected him. They brought him to the Party room and they said "James, it is time for a change", and they got shut of him. In his own words, he was "bust". To get back to the social welfare benefits, I must say that the Deputy has a good sense of humour.

I like a man who fights back. You should not give it out if you are not prepared to take it.

In regard to social welfare benefits, money has been made available on this occasion. Deputies on this side are happy to have the opportunity of making that money available. If further taxation were required to provide further social improvements, I am quite sure we would support the necessary additional taxation so as to improve the lot of the weaker section of the community. It must be remembered that we are the only Party who ever gave thought to the question of social security or social benefits. All the benefits in existence at the moment were implemented by us over the years. I could name very many of them, in case you may have forgotten. There was the Widows and Orphans Pensions Act, the Childrens Allowances Act and all the other Acts which have been implemented by Fianna Fáil. I suppose it is fitting that we would seek to make money available from time to time to improve the lot of the people about whom we thought so much down through the years. Apart from the provisions in regard to the contributory old age pensions, which relieve the fear of retirement, the expansion of the services by way of raising the qualifying limits has brought many more people within the range of social welfare benefits. I hope that in time to come, perhaps next year or the year after, we will be able to provide further additions for some sections of the community that have been provided for by way of additional benefits.

I should like to deal now with Deputy O'Connell. He says in Volume 221, No. 9, at column 1586:

We of the Labour Party say that we are not obliged to give you the answer as to how the country should be run...We have these alternatives but we are not obliged to give them to the Government in office.

We know that there is adequate means of running the country if you sold the Boeings and sold Shannon——

Do not talk too much about Shannon or you will be embarrassing the Government.

If you sold out in other sections, you might have some money that would last for some time. Further on, the Deputy——

What about Deputy Burke's tin can? That has not been exhausted yet.

Deputy O'Connell, at column 1625, Volume 221, No. 10, referred to the 12 per cent wage increase. He said:

As far as I can remember, the Taoiseach was in no small way associated with the last National Wage Agreement. It would seem that Deputy MacEntee now seeks in his letter to castigate the Taoiseach. He blames "those irresponsible politicians who demanded increased expenditure on virtually every public service."

He indicated that the Taoiseach was responsible for the 12 per cent and Fine Gael members indicated that the Taoiseach was responsible for the 12 per cent. Other Labour Party speakers indicated that he was not. They would want to make up their minds who was responsible.

We did not say we were responsible for the 12 per cent. We never said that. We supported it.

Deputy O'Connell went on to say, and I do not know whether or not this is the approved policy of the Labour Party, that:

These increases seem to be out of proportion and I think I should mention them.... Last year the figure was £4,000. This year it has jumped by £11,000. My medical colleague is getting an increase of £16 per week in his salary.

Are we to take it that some people are getting too much? Maybe the man is worth the £16 increase in his salary. We cannot judge everybody by our standards.

If we did, some people would be getting very little.

Particularly in regard to wages and salaries, we should not——

One gets £20 and another £1 a week—is that justice?

Perhaps Deputy Dowling would be allowed to make his speech?

Volume 221, Deputy Dr. O'Connell.

Is he in the Deputy's constituency?

He is for the time being. He says:

Did he read of the tragic death, some months ago, of a poor old age pensioner whose blood literally froze in her veins—subnormal temperature they said—due to lack of money?

Of course, that is a lie. The woman had a big bank roll under her mattress.

The Deputy will withdraw——

An untruth, if that is a better word. It is unfortunate that people have made such erroneous statements.

That sounds much better.

Give us more of Deputy O'Connell.

I shall pass on to some others.

Would you oblige us with an extract from Deputy MacEntee?

Some time ago I was speaking in the House in connection with employment and referred to the fact we were concerned that statistics had proved that the employment situation had worsened to some degree. When we came back to power in 1957, after you had run away from your responsibilities, there were 100,000 unemployed. You were not concerned about them or about the 70,000 emigrating. You were not concerned about the unfortunate people employed in Collinstown and Shannon in 1948 when the hatchet fell on the transatlantic air service. If we go back far enough, we were told by Deputy McGilligan that it is not the duty of the Government to provide work for the people.

He never said that. It is entirely out of its context. He gave the money to the local authorities and said it was their duty.

I have it here— volume 9, column 563, Deputy P. McGilligan:

If it is said that the Government has failed to adopt effective means to find useful work for willing workers, I can only answer that it is no function of the Government to provide work for anybody.

Earlier in the debate, at column 562 of the same volume, he said:

There are certain limited funds at our disposal. People may have to die in this country and may have to die from starvation.

Go on; finish it.

That is all there is in it.

"Neither the Deputy nor I stand for that"—go on, finish it. If he does not, we shall have to accuse the Deputy of prevarication.

Do you want the volume?

I know what is in it. I must describe the Deputy as a prevaricator, which is better than the four-letter word, but means the same thing.

That indicates the pattern that had been set at that stage, when they said it was not the function of the Government to find work for willing workers. In 1948, they sent workers packing from Collinstown and Shannon and in 1956, we had 100,000 unemployed.

The only time we ever had over 100,000 unemployed was from 1934 to 1945 when Fianna Fáil were in power. At one stage there were 156,000 unemployed.

We have an answer to our financial problems from one of the Labour Members.

I thought you were going to say Deputy Burke's tin can.

This Labour Deputy said:

Drastic as this devaluation of the pound is, it is one way of answering our problems.

I do not know whether that is the policy of the Labour Party or whether they have other policies. Many solutions to our economic problems have been indicated here but nothing done about it.

Give us the whole of the quotation.

He did the same with Deputy McGilligan. It is most unfair.

I saw you over there on one occasion with little cuttings out of the papers and Dáil debates.

I shall have more tomorrow.

Misquoting figures.

Get up and deny them if you can.

Perhaps Deputy L'Estrange would allow Deputy Dowling to make his speech?

If they are official statistics, they are supposed to be true.

A favourite one with the other side of the House has been the cutting of the calves' throats.

The Deputy quoted somebody. He did not give the name, nor did he give the volume or column number.

Volume 221, Wednesday 16th March.

What column is it?

Column 1786. This quotation is from column 1784. It is again Deputy O'Leary.

Will you finish your quotation about devaluation?

Perhaps Deputy Dowling might be allowed to make his speech?

He is giving snatches and snippets.

I learned that from the Opposition.

It is not the only thing you will have to learn from them before you become a useful Deputy.

I got a tip from you the other day.

Did it win?

It will prove very valuable in the long and dreary years to come.

They are dreary for Fianna Fáil at present.

I do not wish to hold you up much longer.

Not at all.

I want to refer again to 1948. When you went out of office, you had a few torpedo boats left over from the war. After you had torpedoed the nation's finances and industry, you even sold the torpedo boats. One can never forgive the national sabotage of 1948. How they trapped the Labour Party into it is beyond me—to say they sold out the workers of this country. You are an honest man no doubt, and so is Deputy Jim Tully. He is a friend of mine. I do not know whether he was here at that stage. Never again allow yourselves to be trapped by the people who feel it is not the duty of the Government to find work for the people. I was working in Aer Lingus in 1948 when the hatchet fell. The same man was in command, Deputy McGilligan, in the Department of Finance. He was in command in Industry and Commerce in the other period. It was quite evident that the same trend of mind would be followed right through that period. However, you have learned something since then. You now agree with industrial development. Equipment in the chassis factory in Inchicore was sold out of containers before it was ever used, the most elaborate and up-to-date machinery that could be procured anywhere in Europe to start a heavy engineering industry.

The poor builders have plenty of machinery and cannot sell it. They have no work to do.

Potez will make the chassis for you now.

Deputies might get a great surprise in Potez. Many of them may be looking for jobs there yet.

(Interruptions.)

Would Deputies please allow Deputy Dowling to make his speech? This is most disorderly.

In the 1965 Progress Report on the Second Programme for Economic Expansion there is reference to the position of air companies for 1964-65. Aerlínte made an operating profit of £1,181,000 compared with £799,000 in 1963-64. The number of passengers carried increased by 44 per cent, compared with 11 per cent the previous year. As I indicated earlier on, there is provision in this year's Budget for the expansion of airports and the other essential services that go with airports.

Deputy Larkin wanted to know what I had mentioned about local authority housing. Expenditure on local authority housing for 1966-67 is provisionally estimated at £11 million.

How many houses were built?

There were as many houses built as there were when the Opposition were in office.

There were less than half.

Less than a quarter.

Volume 160 gives all the answers.

What about the Fianna Fáil White Paper on housing?

(Interruptions.)

I wish to quote what Deputy Denis Larkin said at column 2060, Volume 160.

What year?

Mr. Lynch

The volume is sufficient.

December, 1956, the year in which the Opposition ran away from their responsibilities when they were in government.

Look at last year's White Paper on housing to see what Fianna Fail did in the past few years.

Let Deputies listen to this:

The picture facing us in Dublin this year is not too pleasant. The number of houses completed in the period from 1st April to 31st October last year was 644: this year the number was 449. The number of men employed on housing, housing development work and allied occupations in Dublin city last year was 2,199: this year the number is 1,854. Bear in mind also the fact that last year's figures represented a 50 per cent reduction on the employment in 1951.

At column 2053 of the same volume, Deputy Denis Larkin said:

I will be fair. I am sure the Lord Mayor and every other Deputy here wants to be fair, too. Our officials also submitted an estimate showing in what way the corporation should confine itself to the total expenditure of £4,000,000 next year. The first step required the cutting of the new contracts for the Finglas area. That has been approved by the Minister, but now we will have to tell the contractor: "Sorry, we cannot continue with this contract now." That involved a reduction of £61,000 in the estimate. The next item was in reference to the direct housing scheme for the Finglas area. The scheme was not to be proceeded with either. It was also suggested that there should be a gradual diminution in employment on direct housing schemes and a gradual laying-off of the workers concerned. The next suggestion was that the Corporation would delay the giving out of other schemes or proceeding with them...

Those were the terrible conditions prevailing during that period.

(Interruptions.)

There are 70,000 fewer people employed today than during that period.

There were 100,000 unemployed then and 70,000 people emigrating because they were being laid off. I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting any proposal that makes it possible for us to have better housing——

There is nothing in this proposal for capital purposes.

——to increase tourism, to develop the Shannon Free Airport Development Company and all the other schemes contained in this Budget.

(Interruptions.)

There is a great deal more I should like to say, but I wish to give other Deputies an opportunity of speaking. I hope Deputies opposite will not distort the situation but will present the situation factually, knowing that they ran away from their responsibilities, knowing they made no provision for social welfare benefits. Small as they may be, there was no provision at all when they were in office.

I was not over-anxious to intervene in this debate at this particular juncture, but, having listened to Deputy Dowling, I must say I have never known such an exhibition of hard neck as that displayed by the Deputy in the rosy picture he tried to paint to illustrate the position of this country at the moment. I should like to congratulate him on his courage and his audacity in standing up here and seeking to defend a Government who are patently bankrupt and have brought this country to the very brink of economic disaster. The audacity of any Deputy in the Government Party casting aspersions on members of the Labour Party, himself a worker, is almost incredible. It is shameful that he should fail to realise that this country is in a worse position now than at any time since the foundation of the State in 1922.

Deputy Dowling used a great many official statistics and quoted from many booklets, seeking to show that we were attaining all the targets set in the programmes for economic expansion. We were realising, according to the Deputy, all the promises the Government had made. The facts are, of course, quite the contrary. Our growth rate in this year is down to a little over two per cent as against the target of 4½ per cent set in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. Deputy Dowling alleged that he was concerned about the workers. Does he not realise there are fewer people employed today than ever before? The employment figures are down to 1,050,000, the lowest figure ever recorded.

Where did the Deputy get that figure?

From the Central Statistics Office. There are fewer in employment now than in 1956.

No less than 44,000 jobs seem to have disappeared and there are 10,000 fewer people employed today than there were in 1963.

The Deputy is making these figures up.

I will go out and get the figures for the Deputy.

Let him do his own homework. These figures are very carefully compiled. The Deputy need not worry. Deputy Dowling sought to imply that everything is lovely and that the Government have achieved certain things. Anyone who looks around the country must realise despair and frustration deep in the hearts and minds of the people. Even the most ardent Fianna Fáil supporters are shocked and dismayed because of the sorry mess into which their leadership has led the country. The Fianna Fáil Party have led this country for a considerable number of years, first under the President, Mr. de Valera, and now under the Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass. These were regarded as virtually infallible, as men who could not make a mistake. It has shocked the most diehard Fianna Fáil supporters to realise that in 1966 the country is in this sorry predicament.

Who told the Deputy that?

There is a yawning gap in our balance of payments and there is nothing in this Budget to relieve that situation, a situation in which there is a steady outflow of capital from the country, resulting in an acute credit squeeze affecting all services, and especially essential services. The audacity of Government speakers to pretend that all is well! It is an insult to the intelligence of the people. We all know things could not be worse. We are concerned that there is nothing in this Budget to indicate what steps the Government intend to take to get us out of the economic chaos. How long will this situation last? Will it improve? Can Government spokesmen tell us when we shall see an improvement and an acceleration in industrial and agricultural output, when we shall see a sufficiency of money to carry on essential services, such as health, education, housing, social welfare and all the others? Will the situation become progressively worse?

One halfcrown in three years.

Deputy Burke's tanners.

Talking about halfcrowns, this Budget has been referred to by leader writers as a vicious Budget, a Budget which takes all and gives nothing. On the day on which this Budget was introduced, there was a bannerline in the Evening Press, indicating that there was a 5/- increase for all social welfare recipients. Those of us who sat in this House and listened to the Minister's speech realised only too well that a means test applied to this pittance of 5/-. In the Budget of 1965 the means test was one of £26 a year, or roughly 10/- per week. Those who had 10/- per week did not get the 5/- increase in the Budget of 1965. On this occasion the Evening Press, the Pravda of the Government Party, implied that all would get the 5/-increase. The truth is, of course, that only those who are destitute will get this 5/- increase. That is a hideous insult to the old, the sick, the infirm and the unemployed. It is despicable that none but those who are destitute will get this increase. It is an indictment of this Government. It makes a mockery of the suffering of these unfortunate people who are only barely able to exist, the aged, the widowed, the unemployed who, as a result of excessive taxation and the high cost of living, have been forced down to a substandard of existence; and to talk about 5/- in the one instance and make capital out of this in the context of this Budget and then in the small print to say this applies only to those with no means, is surely one of the most despicable political tricks ever perpetrated by any Government on this House.

Even the most ardent supporter of this régime will not deny that things are very bad with the economy. I have already adverted to the acute shortage of money for all essential purposes. This has had terrible consequences. It has had the effect of holding up the re-housing of our people, countless thousands of whom are living in condemned hovels, rat-infested tenement flats. There is no hope now that any money will be made available to meet our commitments in regard to the rehousing of these people. In the history of the State, money has not been so scarce. The situation is a serious indictment of this régime who allowed the situation to arise.

Having allowed it to arise, they resorted to borrowing money abroad. First of all, there was the abortive attempt in America, and then, to our shame, the negotiation of a loan with the Germans at an extortionate rate of interest. I have heard Opposition spokesmen say that the appropriate symbol for the present Government is the pawnbroker's balls. I fully concur in these sentiments. This is an administration who went to the pawnbrokers and whose pledges have not been redeemed. Any pledges that have been redeemed have been at extortionate rates of interest.

There are so many aspects of this Budget that it is difficult to know where to start. One aspect with which I am particularly concerned as a member of a local authority is the 25 per cent increase in motor taxation. That was bad enough, but on top of it the Irish motorist also has to pay an increased price for his petrol. Up to now, all revenue garnered from road tax was channelled into the Road Fund and that fund, as we all know, was devoted to the maintenance of the roads. On this occasion I understand that the 25 per cent extra revenue will be diverted to the Exchequer.

Robbing the Road Fund.

This is looting the Road Fund. If it happened under another Government at least that Government had the honesty and decency to come to the House and say to this Parliament that they were doing this for a specific purpose. Now the Road Fund is being rifled, a precedent has been created and the local authorities' revenue in future will mean less money for main and county roads. An amazing feature of this Budget is that it came to the House two months before its usual time and according to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, we may have another Budget in the autumn. The mismanagement of the financial affairs of the country has been clearly instanced on this occasion. Obviously, the Budget of 1965 lasted only ten months and the Budget of 1966, we are told, will last only about nine months. Was there ever an example of such mismanagement of the financial affairs of our country?

The occasion of the Budget, one would expect, is a time of assessment in regard to the economy and the trend of things to come. This Budget does nothing more than maintain things as they were, uphold the status quo. There are no indications whatsoever of an upsurge of economic growth, of increased employment, of a stemming of emigration, of adequate control of prices, of any of these desirable things. The Budget is not merely holding things as they were: it is now largely understood that there will be another Budget in the autumn. The design of the Government Party in this issue is now well known. They have squandered the resources of the country, wasted the precious years of unity and independence. There can be no excuse for them. They have been in power during 28 of the 36 or 37 years during which we have had native Government. Twenty-eight years in Government is a fair innings for any Party. Outside of the dictatorships in Russia, in North-east Ulster and possibly in Spain and Portugal, it cannot be matched. Very few Governments anywhere have been afforded such an opportunity to control the destinies of their peoples.

With the exception of a few short years of Coalition Government, Fianna Fáil have been in absolute power in this country. Time and time again in general elections the people placed full confidence in them and on many occasions gave them overwhelming majorities to govern and to implement their policies and programmes and to rectify the social and economic ills of the country. Since our early teens, since we came to the use of reason, we remembered their slogans and promises. We remember their promises of full employment. We remember the leadership of this Party stating time and time again that the acid test of good government was full employment. Full employment was the keynote of the social philosophy of this Government Party.

In the First Programme for Economic Expansion, again full employment came to the forefront and they told the people of this country they would provide 100,000 jobs. The people believed it and gave them the votes and the support to implement that policy. In that five year period, what transpired? Instead of the 100,000 jobs being realised 270,000 people were forced to emigrate. It is difficult to conjure up the mass exodus of human beings involved in that figure: the flower of our youth, our boys and girls, in those five years of that glorious First Programme for Economic Expansion, were forced, scourged out, to the four winds of the world. At the same time, we have had this chronic problem of unemployment at home standing at 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 persons. Despite the exodus from the countryside and from the cities into the world at large, we still cannot maintain employment at home.

Nobody now would have the audacity to suggest that the Second Programme for Economic Expansion has any hope of success. It is nothing but a pious hope, economic guesswork, incapable of fruition. The facts are that in respect of these programmes for economic expansion, the Government failed to take the effective measures to make them realities and realise the things they said could be done in them. Without taking the necessary measures to see to it that the targets set in these programmes are attained, it is simply hoping for economic salvation in this country. In the light of this Budget and in the light of the situation in which we now find ourselves, let there be no more talk of programmes. I do not know who are the economic advisers to this Government but, whoever they are, they have a lot to answer for. Is it possible that this trend of events could not have been foreseen a few years ago? Is it possible that nobody saw the signs of this economic deterioration setting in——

——until after the general election.

——until after the general election of 1965? It is difficult to understand that just 12 months ago we were fighting a general election. We well remember the slogans and the promises and pledges of this Government Party. There was no sign or indication of any kind in the long statements, manifestoes or speeches uttered by leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party, that there was anything fundamentally wrong at all with our economy; everything in the garden was lovely and all that required to be done was to put them back in power, when, of course, they would give us the jobs, the prosperity, the security and the happiness which were just around the corner.

It shocked and appalled the people that a few months afterwards, in the summer of last year, this sorry trend of events revealed itself. Is it possible that for mere political gain this Government could, and in fact did, conceal the true state of affairs from the people? We know promises are made and political gimmicks are adopted in winning by-elections, and the two by-elections—one in Cork and another in Kildare—were the most costly by-elections this country ever had to contend with because the price this Government Party paid for them was a price the people of Ireland will pay for a long number of years to come. We are concerned at the kind of deceit perpetrated on the Irish people in concealing from them the true state of affairs with regard to our economy.

I have heard Government spokesmen give various explanations as to what is wrong with this country at the present time. The Government are obviously desperate to find some kind of scapegoat on which to hang the responsibility for the present situation. They are turning desperately around and they seem to have found one. The scapegoat would seem to be the Irish trade union movement, the workers of this country.

That is utterly untrue. We here on this side of the House represent the trade union movement just as much as you people.

The Government are desperately turning round and seeking to hang the responsibility and the blame on some section of the community and it would now seem that the workers are the culprits.

Deputy Treacy can take it from me they are not.

I can prove it to the Deputy.

The workers are not the trade unions.

Deputy Molloy would not know.

This sort of criticism is not peculiar to some members of the Fianna Fáil Party.

It is my submission that a deliberate attempt is being made in this House and in the country to malign and misrepresent the trade union leaders and the working classes in respect of the present situation.

Every dissension, strike or lock-out which heretofore would get little publicity, is amplified in the press, on radio and TV. The situation is being grotesquely exaggerated in many instances.

In which instances?

We now have a situation in which Ministers of State are deliberately provoking the unions concerned. There is the instance of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs provoking the Post Office Workers Engineering Union to precipitate them into taking strike action. We have a situation where a responsible general secretary of a union is not allowed to negotiate on behalf of his people in the office of the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs and is told to keep out. We have a situation in which people are deliberately locked out. People are dismissed on the flimsiest grounds. We wonder if it is the policy of this Government, or of some of its Ministers at least, to provoke the unions into taking action. I marvel at the restraint and the responsibility which the trade union movement is showing under present circumstances. In my opinion, this Government were responsible for the breakdown of the national agreement of some months ago. They took a lot of credit for the ninth round, in respect of the 12 per cent, and won votes from gullible workers on that account.

It is not fair.

It is fair and it is true.

On this occasion, by reason of the bad state of the country, the Government have had the audacity to intervene and to talk to the Irish trade union movement and to the workers of this country in the context of three per cent—three per cent— which was a terrible insult at a time when we all knew that the cost of living had gone out of all proportion.

This Government have acted too late in respect of price control. The greater percentage of the twelfth round was dissipated by reason of increased prices and I regret to have to say that prices are still rising. We remember reading, a few nights ago, in the evening paper of a colossal increase in the price of meat which is becoming the luxury of the rich in this country. However, this mention of three per cent was disastrous in circumstances where the unions were negotiating our national agreement with employers.

The Government have always looked for a headline. The Labour Court are influenced by Government indicators and, so, likewise, are employers. This Government are responsible for the industrial unrest which is rife at the present time in this country by their opposition to a reasonable increase and the maintenance of decent living standards for our people.

Let there be no question about it: the Irish trade union movement will not be intimidated. The inference that insidious forces are at work is, of course, completely false and utterly unfounded. The industrial unrest at present which is bringing about ugly strikes and lock-outs and which is causing human hardship is a spontaneous reaction of Irish workers against an attack on their living standards by oppressive government. The Irish working classes, come what may, will maintain their living standards and take all necessary steps to improve them in accordance with the productivity and the wealth of this country.

I am concerned that, in order to bring this issue still further, the Taoiseach now talks of amending the Constitution. We wonder why the Taoiseach is now considering the amendment of the Constitution——

Everyone knows the reason. It is to take eyes off everything else.

——which enshrines the fundamental rights of every man and woman in this country. It is a document which has been approved and applauded throughout the world as a model for any democracy. What has gone wrong now? Does the Taoiseach wish to filch from our people, or sections of our people, certain fundamental rights contained in that Constitution?

The American Constitution has also been amended. The Irish Constitution was introduced in 1937, almost 30 years ago. There is a difficult situation now and the Taoiseach's speech was very reasonable.

Is that why he was calling out for legislation for the unions? There is a growing momentum to invoke the Constitution to curb certain societies.

They did not believe in the Constitution at one time themselves.

Very true. However, the right of free association is enshrined in that Constitution. It is sacred to our people. Heaven forbid that any Government would have the temerity or the audacity to interfere with it. Fianna Fáil sought to amend the Constitution some few years ago when they could see that they were being thrown out of office, when they were losing caste with the people. They wanted to rivet themselves to power in the country.

Hear, hear.

They sought to amend the Constitution so as to abolish proportional representation.

They should have succeeded.

The people of the country gave them their answer.

The Irish people are a freedom-loving people. They knew that if Fianna Fáil succeeded in abolishing proportional representation and substituted the straight vote system they would be riveted to power for an indefinite period of time and would become power drunk and, as we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our people are wise in this respect. We shall carefully watch the actions of the Taoiseach in respect of these proposals to interfere with our Constitution. Obviously, the amendment of the Constitution is for ulterior, selfish, political motives solely. The Taoiseach is not concerned about the welfare of the Irish people, but about the welfare —and well he might be concerned about it—of his crumbling Party.

I have said that Government indicators very largely determine the kind of peace, progress and harmony we have in industry in this country. In 1964, we negotiated the ninth round. It was negotiated in an atmosphere of cooperation and cordiality. The workers were not responsible for what followed. We now have a situation in which the Government have set their faces against just and fair demands which are being made by Irish workers. They are opposed to anything like a fair increase in wages—the criterion used is three per cent and no increase whatsoever for any of those workers whose salary exceeds £1,200 a year.

I understand that a Deputy in the Government Party, only this very evening, expounded his theory—and I am sure it is well-founded within his Party, as well—that he is opposed to any of these fringe benefits which are so important to our working classes, the fringe benefits of pension schemes, sickness benefit, extra holidays and, of course, the important matter of a reduced working week. He was deliberately opposed to any reduction in working hours. In all progressive countries where Governments are concerned about the attainment of human happiness for their people, there goes with that ambition not merely the attainment of high standards of life and respect for cultural values but also a desire for more leisure time. That is an aim with all progressive people.

The days of slavery and drudgery are over and our people have a right to reasonable leisure time, and to enjoy the good life, the full life, the rich and abundant life we should like to give them. It is a bit too late for Fianna Fáil to attempt to put the clock back and seek to exploit the workers by resisting reasonable demands in respect of wages and conditions of employment. At a time when progressive countries are seeking a 20 or 30 hour week, we are conforming very largely to a 40 or 42½ hour week. Is it suggested that we should remain in that position in this atomic age, at a time when other countries, comparable with Ireland, by reason of the scientific knowledge available, are reaching full employment, high living standards, the best social welfare services, equal opportunities in education, free health services and other such facilities?

It is truly a wonder of wonders that, close as we are to the flourishing economy of Britain under a Labour Government, with full employment and a welfare State which is the glory of Europe, we should not have risen above the archaic, outmoded and sometimes slavish and depressed conditions which we have tolerated in this country for too long. Deputy Andrews is very anxious about the Constitution. I see that his lawyer's mind is activated. He is concerned as to how he can place the trade union movement in some form of strait-jacket.

That is not true. I am as anxious about the trade union movement as the Deputy.

He would like, perhaps, to give legal powers to the Labour Court, and to turn the Labour Court into a political junta to be used for and at the behest of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Nonsense.

That would not be unknown.

If that happens, industrial peace will be at an end for a considerable time. We will never agree to the democratic institutions of this country being turned into political juntas for the maintenance in power of any particular clique.

That is not true.

It is true.

The Deputy says it is and I say it is not.

Everyone knows it is.

I do not.

There is nothing whatsoever in this Budget to deal with the immediate problems of our people, and in respect of legislation long anticipated and much talked about by Government spokesmen, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that money is being made available to implement the necessary and desirable legislation in this session.

I refer in particular to the desirability of implementing the manpower policy which has been talked about so glibly by many Government spokesmen for some time past. In this country, scourged by unemployment, and with a constant and recurring problem of redundancy, not to mention emigration, there is a dire need for a manpower policy. That is self-evident. It is the unanimous conclusion of the Committee of the National Industrial and Economic Council which has studied this matter for some considerable time past.

The Labour Party welcome a manpower policy. We have always advocated it. We urge the Government to bring this legislation forward at the earliest possible moment, but the only legislation we have been promised in respect of this manpower policy is a training scheme for workers, and the other desirable features of the policy are being shelved, it would seem, for some time. This important subject of redundancy payments for workers is a result of new techniques and methods, and adaptation measures being imposed or recommended by Government agencies and large numbers of workers are becoming redundant virtually every day.

By reason of the agreement now entered into with Britain in respect of the Common Market, and having particular regard to the reports of the Committee on Industrial Organisation, this House and the country should know that we will have a serious redundancy problem to contend with. Why is there the delay in respect of the implementation of this manpower policy and as regards the measure which would seem to be near fruition and may very well appear in the form of a Bill in this House very soon? A training scheme for workers is a very laudable thing in itself, because a manpower policy, let it be clearly understood, can best be implemented, and secure the best results, in an abounding economy of full employment, but we question the urgency of the training scheme for workers at the present time.

A training scheme for what? For what kind of employment, at a time when we have a surplus of labour constantly on the market, approximating 60,000 persons at the present time who are obviously out searching for work every day. Where are the opportunities? Where are the jobs for which we propose to train these people?

In Birmingham.

I should be glad to learn where they are and what proposals the Government have for implementing this kind of policy. I do not want to delve too deeply into this manpower policy at this juncture. We shall have a further opportunity on another debate to go into the matter in greater detail, but I want to make this point. It is not sufficient to have a manpower policy controlled by a Parliamentary Secretary only, and with the responsibility divided between two Departments, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Social Welfare. We have not much hope of success from this haphazard approach to a manpower policy.

We in the Labour Party have always urged the Government to give us a distinct ministry to implement this manpower policy, a Ministry of Labour. Surely, with such vast resources untapped in the land and in the seas about our island homes, and with such a vast reservoir of labour to utilise, this Government should long before now have established a Ministry of Labour, whose sole function it would be to organise the economy of our country and develop it to provide the maximum employment. Is it not most appropriate in this year, the fiftieth anniversary of the Rising, that we should emulate the decision made by the First Republican Government in this country, the Provisional Government of the Young Republic, who thought fitting then 50 years ago to designate the great Countess Markievitz to be Minister for Labour? Would it not be a fitting tribute to her and to those with whom she fought, and particularly to the women and the workers of this country, to establish a Ministry of Labour which would re-dedicate itself to the principles of Markievitz and Connolly, seek to implement their philosophy in our time and seek to implement those words set out on the Proclamation: "Cherishing all the children of the nation equally and guaranteeing all equal rights and equal opportunities".

I shall not detain the House any longer. I was slow to intervene in this debate. I would not have done so, were it not for the provocative remarks made by other Deputies who sought to infer there was nothing fundamentally wrong with our economy. They seek to convince our people that their Party, and their Party alone, are the only Party capable of doing anything worthwhile for our people. Everyone now knows, certainly anyone with any commonsense realises, that it will take great, brave and courageous men to lift this country of ours and its people out of the rut, out of the gloom and despondency which surround it on every side today, put it permanently on the high road to prosperity and bring about the happy situation of the island of happy homes to which I know we all aspire.

At the beginning of this debate, there were very many remarks made by the members of the Opposition Party, especially the Fine Gael Deputies, that Deputies on this side of the House did not wish to speak in this Budget debate.

They were slow to start.

They tried to give the impression that there was nothing good we could say about this Budget: we were sitting here without contributing. I would like it to be put on record now that Fine Gael have run dry. The debate has gone from Fianna Fáil to Labour and back to Fianna Fáil. None of the Fine Gael Deputies has contributed.

That is because the Leas-Cheann Comhairle did not call them. Several of our Deputies offered but they were not called. They are still here. There are at least six of them if you want them.

Increased taxation is not the kind of thing that evokes spontaneous joy. It is a recognised means whereby responsible Governments throughout the world can ensure that the wealth, which they help to create, can be collected and used in a manner which will benefit all the people in the country, especially the more needy section of the community. Nobody likes paying taxes at any time, even though one knows one will benefit by them in the long run. Fianna Fáil were never afraid to tell the Irish people, in order to achieve the progress everybody desires, there was an obligation on everybody to contribute, according to his means, to the achieving of those desired ends.

Paddy Burke's six-pence.

If the Opposition Deputies object to the services on which this Fianna Fáil Government propose spending the taxpayers' money then let them be specific and state the services to which they object. At this stage, which I think is the seventh day of this debate, the only objection we have heard is to the taxes themselves. When the Opposition Deputies placed themselves for election before the people 12 months ago, did they tell the people they were going to be so irresponsible? Did they feel, when they made themselves candidates, they were not going to be honest in their dealings?

You are lucky to be here.

The only Opposition Deputy, to my knowledge, who publicly stated he was going to act irresponsibly is Deputy Oliver Flanagan. He is the only honest man among you.

A lot cannot be said about your side.

To show you how honest he is, he told them that if Fine Gael were elected to government, nobody would get jobs but their own supporters.

That is what Fianna Fáil are doing now.

It certainly is not.

What about the postman in Drumcondra?

That is the kind of thing you like to put out to the people, trying to deceive them. I can tell you that what I say is right. I am speaking with inside knowledge.

What about the post office in Drumcondra?

If Deputies want to hear what we have to say, then let the ten or 11 of them who are here listen to what I have to say. This Budget has been called everything by them from the hairshirt Budget to what that Deputy from North Mayo, Deputy Lindsay, called a very savage Budget. According to Deputy Lindsay, the worst aspect of this Budget is the increase of 25 per cent on motor taxation. Deputy Lindsay stated, on that occasion, that he particularly deplored the increase in the tax on private motor vehicles. Now we have the position where every private motorist is being asked to pay roughly 3/- a week in tax to help the economy of this country, and Deputy Lindsay deplored that.

What about the petrol?

He was speaking about the increase in the motor taxation. I think really in their hearts and souls the Opposition were terribly disappointed that this Budget was not stiffer. Certainly they must admire the ingenuity of our Minister for Finance in bringing in this Budget which really did not hit anybody very severely at all and has avoided taxing any one section of the community.

It is on top of all the extra taxes which have been brought in during the last nine years.

There is a deficit of £12½ million to provide the services which the people demand and which you have demanded on every Estimate here and at Question Time. In every economic debate you demanded more for this and more for that without any indication of where the money was to come from.

We did not make any demands for the status increases which cost £10 million.

Deputy L'Estrange should desist from interrupting.

The only constructive suggestion made here today was that made by Deputy John A. Costello. He suggested taxing cosmetics. If you study the benefits received from taxation and where the increased taxation is imposed, you will find that there was no section of the community overtaxed. If you tax cosmetics, you are taxing the lipstick and every lady in the country——

Do not do that until you get one.

The Deputy might find some on his hankerchief. These Opposition Deputies who have continually ridiculed the Government's programme for economic expansion should remember to take economics seriously, but not too seriously. I shall recall for them what a well-known economist, Keynes, once said when proposing a toast before the Royal Economic Society in 1945. He said: "I give you the toast of the Royal Economic Society, of economics and economists who are the trustees, not of civilisation but of the possibilities of civilisation." I would ask those who try to ridicule our programme for economic expansion to remember those words. Fianna Fáil have laid before the people of Ireland what they think are the possibilities for the country and are striving to attain them and, instead of the jeering and ridicule offered by them the Opposition should concentrate on constructive co-operation, such as we had from Deputy Costello this evening.

The present difficulties which the economy is experiencing stem from the adverse trends in our balance of payments which deteriorated at a very rapid pace in the first few months of 1965. In that period cattle exports were substantially below the high level of a year earlier while industrial exports remained static. Coupled with this fall in exports was the tremendous increase in imports and although a substantial amount of the goods which contributed to this increase were purchases of capital equipment which will in time contribute to the wealth of the country, there was also a tremendous upsurge in consumer demand which resulted in increased imports of consumer goods. I should say that unwise spending of our increasing new wealth was one of the main reasons for the present difficulties with our balance of payments.

It is easy for Deputies without responsibility to come in here as we have seen and say that the Government withheld the true facts from the people last year at the time of the general election. The many speeches made by the Taoiseach and the Dáil candidates prior to election day on April 7th were made at a time which preceded the publication of trade statistics for the first quarter of 1965 and they could not have known what the figures would be. If the Opposition Deputies had some knowledge at that time which they felt was important they should have let the country know.

We are learning from the Deputy.

In the words of their own economic journalist, Senator Garret FitzGerald, "everything happened at once". That was an honest statement made by a man who does his homework and was aware of the facts and if Deputies over there are not aware of them I shall quote from the Irish Times Annual Review of 1965. This was written by their own Senator FitzGerald whom they have been continually contradicting here for the past three or four weeks.

He wrote:

Growth without growing pains was for all practical purposes our experience during the period from 1959 to 1964. This couldn't last indefinitely—it was probably inevitable that at some stage the expansion of the economy would create excessive pressures on our resources.

This has now happened. While the expansion of the economy is continuing—although at a somewhat slower rate—we must for some time to come accept constraints on the growth of expenditure, until output and spending are once again brought into a reasonable relationship with each other.

The year 1964 ended with a disturbingly high external payments deficit—£31½ million. Moreover, this figure would have been higher still but for a fortuitous rise in world meat prices, which pushed up our export earnings more rapidly than the actual increase in the volume of our exports warranted. An external deficit of this magnitude was not, however, beyond our means at that time, for the inflow of capital in 1964 was very large—so large indeed that our external assets were actually somewhat higher at the end of the year than at the beginning, despite the alarmingly large current deficit. But a deficit of this size left little or no room for manoeuvre; any further deterioration was likely to eat into our external reserves, especially as there was good reason to expect a fall in the inflow of capital during 1965.

At this stage everything happened at once.

This was not known at the time of the election.

That is not what Deputy MacEntee and the Minister for Transport and Power said.

In April of last year there were no——

Acting Chairman

Will the Deputy please give the reference?

Quote it again; we want it for the record.

Does the Deputy want me to continue? It goes on:

The capital inflow did in fact decline, but—even more important —the trade deficit widened sharply between February and May.

I would ask Deputies opposite to note that the difficulties arose between February and May and that the election took place on April 7th, enough of the election speeches being made at the end of March. It continues:

Exports of cattle were much lower than a year earlier while the British import levy, imposed in October, 1964, virtually halted the growth of industrial exports. At the same time imports rose sharply, for a variety of unconnected reasons. Cereals imports were heavy because of the bad 1964 harvest, and there were also larger imports of machinery and equipment — including additional jet aircraft for Aer Lingus.

A boom in car sales at the turn of the year seems also to have led to substantial imports of car aggregates by assemblers rebuilding their stocks, and there were increased imports of materials required by exporting industries such as the oil refinery and the pharmaceutical industry.

I assume Deputy L'Estrange has had enough of his journalistic economic friend.

We should like to hear the Deputy's speech now.

It is ludicrous for any member of the Opposition to accuse this Government of withholding information from the people. Never were greater efforts made by any Government to keep the people fully informed of economic trends. I have not very much experience but everybody concerned knows that never was more information put before the people than by the present Government. It has already been mentioned by my colleague, Deputy Dowling, and Deputy Harte stood up and said— no, he was actually sitting down when he said it—that if he was to read all the literature provided for him by the Government Departments he would not have time to do anything else. One wonders what else he does. Deputy Dillon says that the country is bust and in true sheep-like fashion that line is taken up by all the Fine Gael backbenches.

The Government are bust.

They all come in and follow the line of Deputy Dillon. I thought he had retired as their leader but they are certainly following him still. They will not allow anybody else to speak——

He warned you of this three years ago.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy must restrain himself and allow Deputy Molloy to make his speech.

Deputy Dillon has several times stated here that his personal ambition is to have Fianna Fáil removed from Government. His political plans in being here would be justified for him if he saw Fianna Fáil leaving the Government benches.

Apparently the country is behind him in that.

We heard that before but when you went to the polls, you got the answer. Yet when Deputy Dillon was asked about the "utter failure"—and I am quoting the words of a former Minister in a Coalition Cabinet—Deputy MacBride in one of the last speeches made in this House before the dissolution of that Government——

What is the Deputy quoting?

I am quoting that from memory.

The Deputy may not quote from memory.

Of course I can quote from memory. I have not got the volume here but it is definitely there and it was one of the last speeches made before the dissolution.

Do not start quoting something unless you know what it is. The Deputy is not entitled to quote if he has not got the reference.

He is entitled to paraphrase.

But he said he was quoting.

For the sake of the record, if my memory serves me right, this occurred in one of the last speeches made here at the time of the Coalition. Deputy MacBride was the former Minister who made the statement that their activities in Government had been an utter failure.

(Interruptions.)

That never happened.

That is a very revealing speech. I would recommend it to Deputy Tully.

Surely you cannot blame that on the inter-Party Government. Deputy MacBride was not a Minister.

Mr. MacBride was not a Minister at that time.

He would not know. Give the gossoon a chance.

Has it occurred to Deputy Dillon——

Has it occurred to Deputy Molloy that he should relate his remarks to the Budget?

Has it occurred to Deputy Dillon that external factors may be playing some part in our present difficulties and that no matter what political Party sits in the Government benches, these difficulties will have to be faced?

I should like to quote the Irish Banking Review, Quarterly, December, 1965.

You have a small library in front of you.

It is all a matter of doing your homework.

Do not go too near the banks.

I quote:

In estimating the Irish situation it is very important to avoid over statement.

If what we have heard from Deputy Treacy tonight and from other Deputies over the past few weeks is not overstatement, then I will sit down.

I am not unduly perturbed about the source from which the Deputy is quoting.

Planning always creates difficulties and some miscalculations may be unavoidable. Every country has periods of different rates of growth. It has become a commonplace to speak about the accelerator and the brake in economic policy. But even a strong application of the brake produces a slowing down but not a stoppage. The slowing down of economic activity may involve inconvenience for many people.

You can say that again.

There is urgent need for restraint, discipline and co-operation. But it must be emphasised and understood that the Second Programme has not been frustrated. It may even proceed at a faster rate than originally intended, if the present troubles are correctly treated.

I believe the Government are taking the proper corrective action.

(Interruptions.)

Could I point out that I was here for several hours listening to Opposition Deputies speaking without interruption and it is only fair that a Government Deputy should be given an opportunity to speak?

The Minister was not here when some of the interruptions were taking place.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Tully, Deputy Treacy and Deputy L'Estrange will please refrain from interrupting.

The Chair is aware——

Acting Chairman

The Chair is aware and will not tolerate being dictated to. The Deputy will await his turn, if he has not already spoken.

I agree that we should give the young man a chance.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Barry will please remain silent.

I thank the Minister and the Chair. I should like to make it clear to Fine Gael and Labour that we on this side of the House have the will to govern. The Cabinet have the will to govern and we have the will to be Deputies in the Government Party and we have the determination and will to govern as long as the Irish people ask us to do so and will not run away like Deputy Dillon and his Government did on two previous occasions.

You will be thrown out.

Wishful thinking. It is most significant that the unemployment figures have been steady during the crisis. Anybody who compares the graph of the unemployment figures in 1956 with that of 1965 can see the competent way in which this Government have handled a difficult situation and we have not denied that there has been a difficult situation. It might be very embarrassing for Deputy L'Estrange if I were to show him the graph of some figures in 1957. I think it is on page 65 of the Irish Times Annual Review, 1965.

I know them by heart. They are in England now— 300,000.

Unfortunately, on that occasion the Irish Times had not enough room to show in the graph of 1957 the number of persons who emigrated as the graph goes up over the top of the page, and the Deputy must be very proud to come in and try to shout us down with these statistics that he loves quoting. If he were more interested in the people rather than in figures he might be serving a useful purpose. Deputy L'Estrange continually interrupts every Deputy, shouting across the floor meaningless statistics. It seems to me he got his education in statistical matters from Deputy Coogan.

He was a member of your Party.

Deputy Coogan recently stated to the Galway Press that there were something like 2,000 persons unemployed in Galway city and that he had got his information from no less a personage than the Taoiseach. I challenged him to prove his figures which had got lovely black headlines in the local Connacht Tribune. The following week I contradicted his statement and pointed out that he had been grossly inaccurate— 80 per cent inaccurate—and that the actual unemployment figure there was that there were only about 200-300 persons unemployed. When I told him that his figures were wrong, and that he was misreading the figures the Taoiseach gave him, he never had the courage to reply. I assume when Deputy Coogan declined to comment that he had not the courage to admit his mistake, if mistake it was. Deliberate deception is something I do not like.

I am surprised that you are in Fianna Fáil.

It does not become one who sets himself up as a representative of honest people. As a matter of fact, I should like to give the same advice to Deputy L'Estrange as I gave to Deputy Coogan on that occasion when I told him to leave figures alone and to speak for himself. Deputy Coogan had said that the figures speak for themselves.

Ever since he came into the House, Deputy L'Estrange has been trying to give statistics, shouting meaningless figures across the floor of the House, figures which do not convince anyone because probably of his own simple way of defining them.

They are meaningless when they do not suit Fianna Fáil and annoy them.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Molloy.

I have referred to external factors and would like to read to the House, for the benefit of Opposition Deputies who believe that economic difficulties are being experienced only in this country and that we are out of step with progress being made in western Europe and Britain, extracts from an Irish Press report of 21st March of the United Nations Economic Report:

The annual Review of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) states that soaring wages, reduced productivity and a relatively slow growth rate are threatening Western Europe with inflation. Most of Western Europe is "temporarily" in a phase of relatively slow expansion. It was provisionally estimated that the combined national output of the whole of Western Europe rose by only 3½ per cent in 1965, compared with 5½ per cent in 1964. The report forecast that the 1966 growth rate will be 4 per cent. This slight increase is the result of continued recovery of the economies of France and Italy and a probable improvement in Ireland and Belgium. The growth rate in Ireland was substantially reduced in 1965 the report says. Exports were affected by the British import surcharge and there was a substantial rise in prices following the very big wage increases in 1964.

The Report also states that Britain is expected to maintain an economic growth rate of about two per cent this year. It will be the only country with a growth rate of under three per cent in 1966.

It is clear from this that the international opinion is that Ireland will make greater progress than Britain in this coming year. Progress, however, will be achieved only if all sections of the community co-operate in the necessary restraint. In the private sector, this entails a large reduction in imports of consumer goods, increased productivity on the part of each individual and a substantial increase in savings.

In the public sector, the Government must give the lead in reducing expenditure of public funds. The Government have not been slow in trying to effect savings in the economy and any Deputy who takes up the Estimates for 1966-67 can see there clearly illustrated under very many headings the savings that have been effected by the Fianna Fáil Government.

Housing, the FCA, for instance.

Any Deputy who takes the trouble to examine the Estimates can see the savings plainly. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I have become greatly aware over the past 12 months of the complexity of public financing. The thousands of headings under which State funds are spent can all be justified and each one in itself is providing a much needed service or assisting financially some service which different sections of the community greatly appreciate. Collectively, all these moneys are being spent for the purpose of increasing the wealth of the country by utilising to the full the existing sources of wealth and providing the opportunity for developing new sources of wealth.

The amount in the Book of Estimates for Public Services for the year ending 31st March, 1967 is £239,265,720. Although a more detailed discussion will be allowed when the Estimates are before the House, I should like to mention some of the more important Estimates as I feel emphasis should be laid on the fact that provision has been made for increases in nearly all cases. In the case of agriculture, there is an increase of £3,544,000.

For John Bull to eat our butter.

On page 106 of the Book of Estimates—I told Deputy L'Estrange to wait and I would give him the figures——

To pay John Bull to eat our butter while Irish people are eating margarine.

(Interruptions.)

Burn everything British except their coal.

Who said that?

But you repeated it for years.

Order. Will Deputy L'Estrange restrain himself? Will Deputy Molloy report progress?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share